Spence v. Centerplate
931 F. Supp. 2d 779
W.D. Ky.2013Background
- Spence sues Centerplate in Jefferson Circuit Court for race discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful discharge, seeking various damages and fees.
- Plaintiff expressly stipulates in the complaint that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, inclusive of all damages and fees.
- Plaintiff later submits a stipulation to remand asserting he will not seek damages over $74,999 inclusive of all components.
- Centerplate removes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, arguing that § 1332 diversity jurisdiction exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- Court analyzes whether the amount in controversy may still be satisfied under amendments to removal rules and the plaintiff's stipulations.
- Court sustains plaintiff’s motion to remand, concluding the stipulations are unequivocal and binding so as to keep the amount in controversy below $75,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand is proper based on the stipulations | Spence argues the stipulations bind, keeping damages under $75,000. | Centerplate asserts the amount could exceed $75,000 and removal is proper under § 1446(c)(2). | Remand granted; stipulations binding keep AIC under $75,000. |
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 despite stipulations | AIC remains under $75,000 per stipulations and Kentucky rules. | AIC could exceed $75,000 based on potential back pay, wages, and punitive damages. | AIC not shown to exceed $75,000; remand affirmed. |
| Whether post-removal stipulations can rescue removal under the 2011 amendment | Stipulations limit damages and the defendant cannot rely on excess risk. | The amendment allows removal when state practice prohibits specifying a sum and permits exceeding it. | Amendment permitted removal only if plaintiff's damages could exceed; here stipulations prevent. |
| Whether the stipulations are unequivocal and binding | Stipulations unambiguously cap damages at $74,999. | Stipulations may be ambiguous and insufficient to limit jurisdiction. | Stipulations are unequivocal and binding, supporting remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (removal standard—'more likely than not' AIC meets threshold)
- Gafford v. Gen. Electric Co., 997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993) (burden not certainty; no need to prove exact damages)
- Egan v. Premier Scales & Sys., 237 F. Supp. 2d 774 (W.D. Ky. 2002) (unequivocal stipulations limit damages; jurisdictional threshold preserved)
- Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll., of Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) (binding nature of stipulations; judicial approval of waivers)