IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

LINDA DALY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:15-CV-79

)

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Removal filed

on March 4, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the case is

REMANDED back to the Lake Superior Court, Indiana, on the basis

that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this

controversy. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, contained in

the response brief (DE #13) is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

Linda Daly (“Daly”) filed a complaint in the Lake Superior

Court on January 22, 2015, alleging that her prior employer, Home

Depot, U.S.A. Inc. (“Home Depot”), falsely imprisoned her in

violation of Indiana law. Home Depot filed a notice of removal

with this Court on March 4, 2015, asserting that this Court has

jurisdiction because the parties are of diverse citizenship and the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 
On May 18, 2015, this Court indicated that Home Depot had not

yet met its burden of demonstrating a factual basis for its belief

that Daly’s claims are valued in excess of $75,000. The Court

directed Home Depot to file a statement demonstrating the basis for

its assertion that the amount in controversy is in excess of

$75,000. 

On June 9, 2015, Home Depot filed a statement that, in

substance, states only the following:

1. Plaintiff Linda Daly alleges a false

imprisonment claim against Home Depot arising

out of an incident that occurred on September

10, 2014. As a result of the alleged false

imprisonment, Daly claims that she was forced

to sign a document admitting fault and

acknowledging a debt owed to Home Depot in

excess of $50,000.

2. She also claims to have suffered mental

anguish, severe emotional distress, and public

humiliation.

3. Accordingly, Daly’s claim that she was

forced to sign a document admitting a debt to

Home Depot in excess of $50,000, when combined

with her claims for mental anguish, several

[sic] emotional distress and public

humiliation, establish that her claims, in

total, exceed the Court’s $75,000

jurisdictional threshold.

(DE #12).

In response, Daly has indicated that the reference in her

complaint to the $50,000 debt was made to show the “extent to which

The Home Depot went to obtain an acknowledgment of an unsupported,

unproven theft or loss.” (DE #13 at 2). The reference to the

$50,000 debt was not raised as a category of damages stemming from

2
her alleged false arrest. Counsel for Daly further indicates in

his response that he offered to enter into a stipulation to limit

damages to $75,000 before the May 14, 2015, pre-trial conference

and again at the conference. Both times counsel for Home Depot

indicated he would need to check with his client. Counsel for Daly

also requests attorney’s fees.

In reply, counsel for Home Depot alleges that the statement in

response to this Court’s jurisdictional concerns was filed after

reading only the text of the docket entry, not the Court’s order. 

Apparently the order was somehow overlooked. Counsel for Home

Depot suggests that, had he read the order, he would have

understood that the Court had concerns and provided a more detailed

statement. Yet, the reply offers no more information to support

Home Depot’s jurisdictional claims than either the Notice of

Removal or the initial statement filed on June 9, 2015. While

urging the Court to find that it has jurisdiction, Home Depot’s

counsel also states that the offer to stipulate that damages were

below the amount in controversy was never rejected and “Home Depot

stands ready and willing to allow the matter to be remanded to

State Court in exchange for the stipulation.” (DE #14 at 3).

Despite the apparent agreement of the parties that a stipulation

that damages are less than $75,000 is appropriate, no stipulation

has been filed with the Court.

3
DISCUSSION

Home Depot has the burden of showing that this case was

removable. Wellness Cmty-Nat’l v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46, 49

(7th Cir. 1995); Fate v. Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co., 174 F.Supp.2d

876, 878 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (“when a federal court’s exercise of

jurisdiction is challenged following removal, the burden of

establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking to

preserve removal.”); Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 770

F. Supp. 1324, 1328 (N.D. Ind. 1991). 

The federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Wellness, 70

F.3d at 50. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction where the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties to the suit

are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A

defendant may remove a case that is properly filed in state court

if that case could have originally been brought in federal court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Here, Home Depot has made almost no effort to satisfy this

Court’s jurisdictional concerns. The complaint does not seek to

invalidate the document acknowledging a debt to Home Depot of

$50,000, does not allege that any portion of that debt was

satisfied, and does not seek the return of any sums paid as a

result of this agreement. In fact, the only damages the complaint

appears to seek are damages for mental anguish, severe emotional

distress, and public humiliation as a result of being held by her

4
employer for a period of approximately six hours, arrested, taken

to the police station, and released without charges being filed

against her. These facts, when combined with counsel for Daly’s

willingness to stipulate that damages are less than $75,000 and

counsel for Home Depot’s stated willingness to accept such a

stipulation, demonstrated that remand is proper. 

The only other issue is whether Daly should be awarded 

attorney’s fees. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he process

of removing a case to federal court and then having it remanded

back to state court delays resolution of the case, imposes

additional costs on both parties, and wastes judicial resources.” 

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). Under

Seventh Circuit law, “if, at the time the defendant filed his

notice in federal court, clearly established law demonstrated that

he had no basis for removal, then a district court should award a

plaintiff his attorneys’ fees.” Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d

789, 793 (7th Cir. 2007).

As the court in Parks v. Guidant Corp., 402 F.Supp.2d 964, 971

(N.D. Ind. 2005), stated:

The district court has a broad discretion in

deciding whether to award fees under § 1447(c). In

this circuit, plaintiffs who prevail on a remand

motion are presumptively entitled to attorneys’

fees. The presumption, of course, is rebuttable.

Home Depot’s reply does not address Daly’s request for attorney’s

fees. The Court notes that counsel for Daly, as an officer of the

5
Court, has asserted that he offered to stipulate that damages were

under $75,000 twice prior to the filing of Home Depot’s statement

in support of jurisdiction. Counsel for Home Depot does not

dispute this assertion. This weight in favor of granting an award

of attorney’s fees. Nonetheless, Home Depot’s belief that the

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal,

based on the categories of damages claimed and the allegations

regarding the forced promise to pay Home Depot over $50,000,

support a finding that Home Depot’s position was not unreasonable. 

Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the case is REMANDED back to

the Lake Superior Court, Indiana, on the basis that this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy.

Additionally, the request for attorney’s fees contained in Daly’s

response brief (DE # 13) is DENIED. 

DATED: June 17, 2015 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

6