CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is Granted. The case is remanded

without prejudice to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Wa

Date: _-“7 - -Of sha Wf Darah, Judge

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court


Migute Oder Frm (06/97)
5 5 we United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge John W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7372 DATE 4/27/2001
CASE LILLY, et al vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the
MOTION: nature of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) ao Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
a0) = [Other docket entry]  Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is Granted. The case is remanded without
prejudice to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
dai) oa [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of rtess
Notices mailed by judge's staff APR 3 u 2001
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketes
VY | Docketing to mail notices.
7 | Mail AO 450 form docketty Sepoty nis
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom )

LG deputy's bia ed eh dud
initials

Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

EASTERN DIVISION. qn’ “
) apr 3 0 2001
LILLY, et. al., )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Case 00 C 7372
)
v. ) The Honorable John W. Darrah
)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, )
a Delaware Corp. )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the case to the Circuit

Court of Cook County. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.
DISCUSSION

Although Plaintiffs raise a number of issues in their initial Motion to Remand, in their Reply,
they state, “The sole issue regarding jurisdiction in this case is that the Defendant failed to follow
81.2, rendering its notice of removal defective.”

Local Rule 81.2 provides the procedure for a defendant to follow on filing a notice of
removal where the complaint does not contain an express ad damnum that exceeds the jurisdictional
amount in controversy as to at least one claim in the complaint. It requires the defendant to include
in its notice of removal:

(1) a statement by each of the defendants previously served in the state court action

that it is his, her or its good faith belief that the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional amount; and

(2) with respect to at least one plaintiff in the Illinois action, either—

-l-


(A) aresponse by such plaintiff to an interrogatory or interrogatories as to the amount

in controversy, either (i) stating that the damages actually sought by that plaintiff

exceeds the jurisdictional amounts or (ii) declining to agree that the damage award

to that plaintiff will in no event exceed the jurisdictional amount; or

(B) an admission by such plaintiff in response to a request for admissions, or a

showing as to the deemed admission by such plaintiff by reason of plaintiff's failure

to serve a timely denial to such a request, in either event conforming to the statement

or declination to agree described in subparagraph (2)(A) of this rule.

Where the defendant or defendants do not comply with this rule, “the action will be subject to
remand to the state court for failure to establish a basis of federal jurisdiction.”

Defendant has failed to meet the second requirement by not including an interrogatory or
admission which complies with LR 81.2(A)(2). Ford defends its failure to comply by claiming it had
to file its notice of removal within thirty days of receiving the Complaint since the Complaint put
Ford “on notice that the amount in controversy raised by the Complaint vastly exceeded $75,000.”
(Def. Res. 12). Presumably, Ford is arguing that it didn’t have time to obtain the requisite admission
orresponse. However, this argument is unpersuasive since Plaintiff's failure to respond would have
likewise fulfilled Defendant’s obligation. “A plaintiff is deemed to have admitted that the amount
in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount if that plaintiff fails to serve a timely denial in
response to a request to admit.” Ford v. Mannesmann Dematic Corp., 2000 WL 1469371 (N.D.Hl.
2000)(No. 00 C 1226)(Grady, J.).

This case is therefore remanded without prejudice to the Circuit Court of Cook County for

Defendant’s failure to comply with LR 81.2.