Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Spence v. Centerplate
Citations: 931 F. Supp. 2d 779; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39625; 2013 WL 1163991Docket: Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-00074-H
Court: District Court, W.D. Kentucky; March 21, 2013; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Craig Spence seeks to remand his case against Defendant Volume Services America, Inc. (d/b/a Centerplate) back to Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting that the court lacks jurisdiction due to an amount in controversy below $75,000, which is necessary for diversity jurisdiction. Spence's claims include race discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful discharge, with demands for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Notably, he has stipulated on two occasions that he will not seek more than $74,999 in damages, including all forms of compensation. Centerplate removed the case, claiming federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, asserting that the total amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court confirms the parties are diverse but focuses on whether the amount in controversy criterion is met. Centerplate argues that recent amendments to the removal rules allow it to assert the amount in controversy, given that Kentucky law does not permit specific damage demands. The court highlights that under these amendments, a defendant can claim a higher amount if state practice allows for recovery above what is pleaded. The burden is on the removing defendant to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that the plaintiff's claims satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. The court ultimately decides to grant Spence's motion to remand based on his stipulations regarding damages. The defendant may be required to substantiate the plaintiff's claim for damages, with potential recoveries indicated by Centerplate exceeding the amount in controversy threshold. Centerplate estimates the plaintiff's claims could reach $17,540 in back pay and $35,100 in future wages, along with possible damages for humiliation, emotional distress, and punitive damages totaling over $200,000. Although plaintiffs can stipulate to seeking damages below $75,000 to avoid federal jurisdiction, such stipulations must be unequivocal. The Court has previously invalidated ambiguous stipulations, as seen in Egan, where a plaintiff's statement was deemed insufficient to limit potential damages. In contrast, a clear stipulation from Van Etten was accepted, as it plainly stated the plaintiff's intent to seek less than $75,000. The present plaintiff's stipulation mirrors this clarity, indicating a firm commitment not to exceed the jurisdictional amount. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court recognizes the binding nature of factual stipulations. Despite concerns about potential misuse, the Court is confident the plaintiff will adhere to the stipulated limit of $74,999. Consequently, the plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted, and the case is returned to Jefferson Circuit Court.