Liu v. Genji, LLC
1:17-cv-02560
| N.D. Ohio | Mar 14, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Patrick and Chien Shiu Chin Liu (employees of Genji, LLC) sued Genji in Cuyahoga County Court alleging employment-related state-law claims including wage and overtime violations and breach of contract.
- Each plaintiff sought various damages (back pay, compensatory, punitive, liquidated, interest, attorneys’ fees) but the complaint alleged each plaintiff’s recovery would not exceed $75,000.
- Genji removed the case to federal court asserting complete diversity and that the amount-in-controversy likely exceeds $75,000.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing only state-law claims were pled and damages were limited below the jurisdictional threshold; alternatively they sought leave to add federal claims if the case remained in federal court.
- The court denied remand, finding the defendant met its burden to show a reasonable probability the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists (amount-in-controversy) | The complaint limits each plaintiff’s recovery to under $75,000 so federal court lacks jurisdiction | Mathematical damages estimates, potential statutory liquidated damages, fees, punitive damages, and settlement demands make it probable the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Denied remand; defendant met preponderance showing of a probability the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 |
| Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to amend to add federal claims if case remains in federal court | If not remanded, plaintiffs request leave to amend to assert federal claims | Opposed only insofar as removal is proper; did not prevent amendment | Granted leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2); amended complaint due by court-ordered date |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction determined at time of removal)
- Miller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (burden on removing defendant to show amount in controversy by preponderance)
- Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2001) (defendant need not definitively prove damages; reasonable probability suffices)
- Kovacs v. Chesley, 406 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2005) (state-law entitlement to potential damages counts toward amount in controversy)