Loubna Naji v. Andrew Lincoln, 665 F. App'x 397

Background

On October 2, 2012 Plaintiffs (Naji, Aoum, and on behalf of three Barjas minors) sued Lincoln in Michigan state court for injuries from an August 4, 2012 automobile collision; the complaint alleged Michigan citizenship for both sides and unspecified damages over $25,000.
Lincoln was served December 20, 2012, met his lawyer on January 21, 2013 (allegedly first learning he was domiciled in Indiana), answered January 30, 2013, and removed to federal court on February 21, 2013 (63 days after service).
The district court questioned subject-matter jurisdiction and timeliness of removal; Lincoln submitted evidence (affidavit, license, tax returns, voter registration) to show Indiana domicile.
Plaintiffs’ counsel was repeatedly sanctioned and warned for discovery abuses and ultimately failed to attend a mandatory pretrial conference; the district court dismissed the case with prejudice for repeated contumacious conduct.
On appeal Plaintiffs challenged timeliness of removal for the first time and also argued the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction; the Sixth Circuit limited review to jurisdictional questions and procedural-forfeiture issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court had diversity jurisdiction	Plaintiffs argued removal was improper (timeliness implied) and challenged federal jurisdiction on appeal	Lincoln asserted he was an Indiana domiciliary and amount in controversy exceeded $75,000	Court found complete diversity (Lincoln domiciled in Indiana; plaintiffs domiciled in Michigan) and at least one plaintiff’s claim met amount-in-controversy requirement; federal jurisdiction existed
Whether defendant’s proof satisfied pleading burden for removal	Plaintiffs pointed to original complaint alleging defendant was Michigan resident; argued removal statement insufficient	Lincoln submitted affidavit and corroborating documents to establish domicile; argued unspecified damages plausibly exceed $75,000	Court held defendant’s domicile showing was sufficient; amount-in-controversy satisfied by Naji’s claimed future lost earnings and care, so jurisdiction established
Whether aggregation of multiple plaintiffs’ claims may satisfy amount-in-controversy	Plaintiffs implicitly relied on state complaint and agreement that damages exceed threshold	Lincoln relied in part on summing plaintiffs’ potential recoveries and future damages for minors	Court rejected aggregation across plaintiffs; however independently concluded at least one plaintiff’s damages (Naji) could exceed $75,000, so requirement met
Whether removal was untimely and whether that defect can be raised on appeal	Plaintiffs argued removal untimely and should have resulted in remand	Lincoln noted removal occurred within his view of 30 days after learning removability	Court held procedural objections to removal (timeliness) were forfeited because Plaintiffs first raised them on appeal; district court could not remand sua sponte for procedural defects

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2006) (limits appellate review to issues not forfeited below)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (notice of removal requires a plausible allegation of jurisdictional facts)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (plaintiff’s good-faith claim ordinarily controls amount in controversy)
Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993) (defendant bears burden to prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1969) (multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate separate claims to meet jurisdictional amount)
Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128 (6th Cir. 1995) (procedural defects in removal are waived if not raised timely)
Jolivette v. Husted, 694 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2012) (issues raised first on appeal are generally forfeited)
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (jurisdiction assessed at time of removal)