Estate of Dylan Buchman v. Diedrich Drill
2:22-cv-01537
E.D. Wis.Mar 14, 2023Background
- Estate of Dylan Buchman sued CK Drill, Lange Lange & Arnold, Inc., and The Cincinnati Insurance Company in Wisconsin state court for wrongful death and products liability after a workplace accident killed 21‑year‑old Dylan Buchman.
- CK Drill was served around December 1, 2022; CK Drill removed the case to federal court on December 22, 2022 and was the only defendant to sign the initial notice of removal.
- The complaint alleges severe injuries, multi‑day life support, and seeks damages for pain and suffering, medical and funeral expenses (Wisconsin practice prohibits pleading a dollar amount).
- The Estate moved to remand on January 17, 2023, arguing the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000; on the same day the other defendants filed separate notices consenting to removal (more than 30 days after service).
- The Court ordered briefing on both the amount‑in‑controversy and whether the lack of unanimous, timely consent required remand; after reviewing the briefs the Court denied remand, concluding the jurisdictional amount was satisfied and any procedural defect was waived or cured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amount in controversy meets diversity threshold (> $75,000) | Buchman: plaintiff controls the claim amount and could recover less than $75,000, so federal jurisdiction is lacking | Defendants: severity of injuries, multi‑day hospitalization, and wrongful death make it reasonably probable that damages exceed $75,000; removing parties met burden by preponderance | Held: Defendants met their burden; Estate did not meet the legal‑certainty standard to show damages are surely below $75,000; diversity jurisdiction exists |
| Whether removal was defective for lack of unanimous and timely consent under 28 U.S.C. §1446 | Buchman: other defendants did not join the initial notice and their consents were untimely, so removal is procedurally defective and remand is required | Defendants: subsequent docketed consents cure the defect; plaintiff waived the procedural challenge by not timely objecting; courts should not sua sponte remand for curable procedural errors | Held: Although consents were untimely, the procedural defect does not require remand because the Estate waived the issue and the defect was cured by later filings; remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (removing party bears burden to establish amount in controversy by preponderance)
- Oshana v. Coca‑Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard for proving amount in controversy on removal)
- Rising‑Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2006) (requirement to show a reasonable probability the amount in controversy exceeds jurisdictional threshold)
- Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (legal‑certainty rule for defeating jurisdiction)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (formulation of legal‑certainty test)
- Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003) (removal requires consent of all properly joined and served defendants)
- Pettitt v. Boeing Co., 606 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (procedural defects in removal may be waived; district court cannot sua sponte remand for curable procedural defects)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service rules relevant to timing of removal consents)