David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jennifer Jamiel has moved to remand this case to state court. (Docket No. 7) In briefings, she states that the case is worth less than $75,000. (Id.; D.N. 11) But she has not, as the defendant points out, provided the Court with an unequivocal statement and stipulation limiting damages. See Egan v. Premier Scales and Sys., 237 F. Supp. 2d 774, 778 (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." Id. Though the defendant has requested that the plaintiff sign a stipulation, she has not. (D.N. 10, PageID # 31)
Moreover, the defendant has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000. Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 829 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Gafford v. General Elec., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993)). First, the plaintiff seeks damages under her homeowner's insurance policy for personal property. (D.N. 1-1) The defendant partly paid on the policy, but then ceased payments when it determined that she submitted claims for items owned by non-relative members of the household as her own. (D.N. 10, PageID # 29) The defendant alleges that this violates the concealment or fraud provision of the policy. (Id.) The plaintiff contends she is owed the remaining amount on the policy, about $60,000. (D.N. 1-1; 10, PageID # 31) Next, the plaintiff also seeks unspecified damages for further benefits under her policy, including additional living expenses, loss or damaged business equipment, and loss of use. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 6-7) Absent an unequivocal stipulation, it appears that plaintiff's damages exceed the requisite jurisdictional amount. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to remand (D.N. 7) is DENIED. January 5, 2016
/s/
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court