United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #14-12752
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Federal Jurisdiction and Removal of PIP Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion involving the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC §1332, Federal Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff held that the $75,000 requirement was satisfied in this no-fault action because the plaintiff’s claim was “more likely than not” greater than $75,000.
This no-fault action was originally filed by plaintiff in Wayne County Circuit Court and was later moved to federal court on grounds of federal diversity jurisdiction. Defendant insurer sought to have it removed to federal court. Plaintiff then sought remand back to state court, arguing his claim did not meet the $75,000 federal amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction. However, Judge Zatkoff disagreed and concluded that, based on the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, a sufficient likelihood existed that plaintiff’s claim would satisfy the $75,000 threshold jurisdictional amount.
Based on the nature of plaintiff’s claim, Judge Zatkoff said the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. He reasoned that, under the circumstances of plaintiff’s accident, defendant was “justified” in believing the amount was greater than the required $75,000. Judge Zatkoff held:
“[T]he Court finds the request made in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for damages ‘in excess of $25,000, plus Interest [sic], costs, and no-fault attorney fees’ provides little insight into whether the amount-in-controversy will exceed $75,000.00 on its own. In combination with the general allegations contained in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, however, the Court finds Defendant GAAC’s argument that the amount-in-controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement persuasive. Specifically, the Court finds [that] a fair reading of the injuries alleged – ‘Plaintiff sustained accidental bodily injuries … [including but] not limited to low back, legs, neck, left arm, headaches, mid back and depression, and sequelae’ – combined with the open-ended request for an unspecified amount of damages … makes it ‘more likely than not’ that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000.00.”
Judge Zatkoff further found it relevant that plaintiff had refused to commit to an order “that damages will not exceed $75,000.00,” concluding that this refusal to commit was further evidence supporting a finding that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Given the foregoing, Judge Zatkoff held the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied for federal diversity jurisdiction.
