UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BILLIE ANN JOURNIGAN, CASE NO. 09-11090

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

 Plaintiffs,

 

vs. 

THE MEDICAL TEAM,

 Defendant. 

 /

OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the

 United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, 

 State of Michigan, on the 8th day of June, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case to State Court (Docket

#6). Defendant has responded. The facts and legal arguments are adequately set forth in the briefs

submitted. Therefore, finding that the determination of the issues will not be aided by oral

argument, and pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(e), this Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion

to Remand be decided upon the briefs submitted, without this Court entertaining oral arguments.

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home health care provider in Flint, Michigan,

during 2007 and 2008. During her employment term, Plaintiff was accused by her supervisor of

taking money from residents of the Defendant’s Abby Park location and of not properly passing out

medication to residents. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was fired or resigned. Plaintiff filed the instant

2:09-cv-11090-LPZ-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 65
2

action in Genesee County Circuit Court, wherein she alleged (1) in Count I - libel and slander by

Defendant, and (2) in Count II - intentional infliction of emotional distress by Defendant. With

respect to each count, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $25,000,

“plus costs, interests and attorney fees, together with exemplary damages.” Defendant removed the

case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff now asks this

Court to remand the case because Plaintiff does not believe Defendant has established diversity

jurisdiction.

III. OPINION

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is engaged in forum shopping as it is apparent “there is no

basis to meet the jurisdictional requirements.” The Court finds that statement inaccurate, at best.

In filing its Notice of Removal, Defendants represented that there is complete diversity of the parties

because “Plaintiff is a Michigan resident, and Defendant is a Virginia corporation with its principal

place of business in Reston, Virginia.” As such, the parties are clearly residents of different states

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court also notes that Defendant has attached to its response

brief an affidavit from its Vice President, Nick Tzirimis, who affirms Defendant is incorporated in,

and has its principal place of business in, Virginia.

The Court finds the amount in controversy in this case clearly exceeds $75,000. First,

Plaintiff assumes that Defendant’s refusal to stipulate that the case will be settled for more than

$75,000 demonstrates that Defendant believes the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. That

assumption is erroneous. The fact that Defendant does not believe that Plaintiff is entitled to

$75,000 is not indicative of what the amount in controversy is; rather, it simply reflects Defendant’s

belief of what the case is worth. Second, in this case, Plaintiff did not include with his motion a

signed statement of damages claimed, as required by E.D. Mich. Local R. 81.1(d), and he does not

stipulate to a damage award of less than $75,000. If Plaintiff had submitted either of these things,

the Court would have the ability to conclude that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 and

2:09-cv-11090-LPZ-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 66
3

remand this case to state court. Third, in his complaint, Plaintiff seeks at least $25,000 in two

separate counts, plus seeks additional damages. When a Plaintiff files suit seeking compensatory

damages, exemplary damages, damages for emotional distress and attorney fees and costs, such that

it appears from the face of the complaint that damages would exceed $75,000, removal is

appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the citizenship of the parties is diverse. See, e.g.,

Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453 (E.D. Mich. 1989); Evans v. Yum Brands, Inc., 326

F.Supp.2d 214 (D.N.H. 2004); Ansley v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 215 F.R.D. 575 (D. Ariz. 2003); Lewis

v. State Farm, 205 F.Supp.2d 706 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Based on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, the

Court finds that there is at least $75,000 in controversy and, as noted above, the parties are diverse.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that this case was properly

removed to this Court, and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case to State

Court is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 8, 2009

2:09-cv-11090-LPZ-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 67
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on June 8, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11090-LPZ-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 68