Estate of Susan Winnig v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiff: Estate of Susan Winnig
Defendant: Bank of America, N.A.
Case Number: 3:2018cv00816
Filed: October 2, 2018
Court: Wisconsin Western District Court
0 Judge: William M Conley
1 Judge: Stephen L Crocker
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed#Document Text
November 30, 2018 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker: Telephone Preliminary Pretrial Conference held on 11/30/2018 [:10] (cak)
November 14, 2018 16 Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Report by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Remington, John)
November 14, 2018 15 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiff Estate of Susan Winnig re: #12 Motion to Dismiss filed by Bank of America, N.A. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Statewide Search Results Too Many, #2 Exhibit 2 - Milwaukee Search Results Too Many, #3 Exhibit 3 - Bayfield County Search Results, #4 Exhibit 4 - Waukesha County Search Results, #5 Exhibit 5 - Dane County Search Results, #6 Exhibit 6 - Waukesha County End Date, #7 Exhibit 7 - Dane County End Date) (Winnig, Joel) Modified on 11/14/2018. (lak)
November 13, 2018 14 Disregard. See #15 . Modified on 11/14/2018. (lak)
November 1, 2018 Set Telephone Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 11/30/2018 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. [#Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conference attached] (jat)
November 1, 2018 13 Brief in Support of #12 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Remington, John)
November 1, 2018 12 MOTION TO DISMISS by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. Brief in Opposition due 11/23/2018. Brief in Reply due 12/3/2018. (Remington, John)
October 19, 2018 Set Deadlines: Bank of America, N.A. answer due 11/1/2018. (jat)
October 19, 2018 11 Featured Case ** TEXT ONLY ORDER **In a prior order, the court required the parties to brief the amount in controversy in order to establish subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In its submission, plaintiff maintained that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in light of its punitive damages request. Unsurprisingly, as the party who removed this action to federal court, defendant agrees that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied because it is not clear "beyond a legal certainty" that plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover that amount. Fortier v. Terani Law Firm, 732 F. App'x 467, 469 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Del Vecchio v. Conseco, Inc., 230 F.3d 974, 978 (7th Cir. 2000)). While the court finds it highly improbable in light of due process concerns surrounding punitive damages awards that plaintiff will obtain that amount, the court agrees, in light of plaintiff's refusal to stipulate to a cap on punitive damages and the limited record, that it is not beyond a legal certainty. As such, an adequate basis for this court to exercise its jurisdiction has been pleaded. While the parties were briefing this issue, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (dkt. #4 ), and plaintiff responded with an amended complaint (dkt. #8 ), adding additional allegations to address defendant's motion. As such, that motion is deemed moot. Defendant is advised to refile it, if it so chooses, or otherwise answer or respond no later than November 1, 2018. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/19/18. (jat)
October 18, 2018 10 Response re: 3 Text Only Order, by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Remington, John)
October 16, 2018 9 Notice by Plaintiff Estate of Susan Winnig letter re travel by attorney for plaintiff. (Winnig, Joel)
October 11, 2018 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bank of America, N.A., filed by Estate of Susan Winnig. (Winnig, Joel)
October 11, 2018 7 Response re: 3 Text Only Order, by Plaintiff Estate of Susan Winnig. (Winnig, Joel)
October 8, 2018 5 Brief in Support of #4 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Remington, John)
October 8, 2018 4 MOTION TO DISMISS for Lack of Jurisdiction by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. Brief in Opposition due 10/29/2018. Brief in Reply due 11/8/2018. (Remington, John)
October 5, 2018 6 Record from Dane County Circuit Court. (Attachments: #1 Circuit Court Docket Sheet, #2 Summons and Complaint, #3 Affidavit of Service, #4 Attorney Appearance, #5 Notice of Filing Removal) (jat) Modified on 10/11/2018 (jat).
October 4, 2018 Briefing set re: amount in controversy: Brief in Support due 10/11/2018. Response due 10/18/2018. (jat)
October 4, 2018 3 Featured Case ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiff Estate of Susan Winnig filed this lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A., in Dane County Circuit Court, State of Wisconsin, alleging that defendant wrongfully denied payment of three Bank of America travelers checks in the amount of $50 each, seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages "in an amount not less than $200,000." (Compl. (dkt. #1-2) 5.) In response, defendant removed this action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, 1446, asserting that this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). While it appears that defendant has adequately alleged that there is complete diversity between the parties, defendant's allegation as to the amount in controversy requirement appears contingent on plaintiff's request for punitive damages in the amount of $200,000. Having an independent obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists, the parties are ordered to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded. By October 11, 2018, plaintiff should explain the legal and factual basis for an award of punitive damages to support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, or, in the alternative, stipulate that the total amount sought does not exceed $75,000. Defendant's response is due on or before October 18, 2018. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/3/18. (jat)
October 2, 2018 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Remington, John)
October 2, 2018 Standard attachments for Judge William M. Conley required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: # NORTC, #Corporate Disclosure Statement. (jat)
October 2, 2018 Case randomly assigned to District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (jat)
October 2, 2018 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Dane County, case number 18-CV-2388, ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0758-2330924), filed by Bank of America, N.A., (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons, #2 Exhibit B - Complaint, #3 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet) (Remington, John) Modified on 10/2/2018. (lak)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Estate of Susan Winnig v. Bank of America, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bank of America, N.A.
Represented By: John R Remington
Represented By: David P. Muth
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Estate of Susan Winnig
Represented By: Joel Bruce Winnig
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?