Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Summit Logistics Group, LLC, 606 F.Supp.3d 743

TQL sued former employee Nathan Ball and Summit in Ohio state court, alleging Ball breached a noncompete and seeking injunctive and monetary relief.
Summit removed the first action to federal court on diversity grounds; the court remanded because Summit failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
After TQL later served Ball, Ball removed the case a second time to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction.
TQL filed a new, unequivocal stipulation stating it will accept cumulative recovery of less than $75,000, expressly including the fair value of any injunctive relief.
Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina; the court addressed remand first as a threshold jurisdictional question.
The court granted remand based on TQL’s binding stipulation and denied the transfer motion as moot for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has diversity jurisdiction because amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	TQL: its stipulation limits cumulative recovery (including injunctive value) to under $75,000, so no jurisdiction	Ball/Summit: amount-in-controversy could exceed $75,000; prior stipulation was defective and defendants bear burden to prove amount	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction — TQL’s unequivocal, binding post-removal stipulation (first post-removal statement as to this removal) establishes amount < $75,000
Whether a later, unequivocal stipulation can be disregarded because plaintiff made prior post-removal statements	TQL: this is a new removal by a new defendant; the stipulation is the first relevant post-removal statement for this removal	Defendants: Heyman bars crediting a later stipulation if plaintiff made an earlier, less clear post-removal statement	Held: Distinguishing Heyman, court credits the stipulation because it is the first post-removal clarification as to this specific (second) removal by Ball
Whether transfer to another federal district is appropriate	TQL: remand moots transfer; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction prevents transfer	Defendants: even if remand denied, transfer to Eastern District of North Carolina is proper	Held: Transfer denied as moot because court remanded for lack of jurisdiction

Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004) (removal jurisdiction assessed by facts at time of removal)
Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) (ambiguities in removal statutes resolved in favor of remand)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading less than jurisdictional amount)
Heyman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., [citation="781 F. App'x 463"] (6th Cir. 2019) (court may decline to credit a later unequivocal stipulation if an earlier equivocal post-removal statement exists)
Shupe v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., [citation="566 F. App'x 476"] (6th Cir. 2014) (stipulation must actually limit potential judgment to be effective)
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-removal stipulations that reduce the amount do not necessarily oust jurisdiction)
Robertson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 831 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2016) (multiple successive removals permitted; later-served defendants may remove)
Benson v. SI Handling Sys., Inc., 188 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 1999) (successive removals are not foreclosed)
Egan v. Premier Scales & Sys., 237 F. Supp. 2d 774 (W.D. Ky. 2002) ("To merely say that one will not accept money in excess of a certain amount limits neither the judgment nor the demand.")