Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Havens v. Red Robin International, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 28, 2019

HUNTER HAVENS, Plaintiff,
v.
RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendants,

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Introduction

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Hunter Havens', Motion to Remand pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §1447(c) and 28 U.S. Code § 1446(b). (ECF #8). Having carefully considered the legal and factual issues raised, and for the reasons that follow, the Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED.

         Summary of Procedural Background

         Mr. Havens originally filed his Complaint on July 13, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, No. CV-18-900683 and named as defendants Red Robin International, Inc. and Rockside Twenty-One, LLC, as well as two "John Doe" companies. On September 26, 2018, Mr. Havens amended his Complaint to identify the two "John Doe" companies as Honeywell International, Inc. and Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, Inc. Mr. Havens then voluntarily dismissed Rockside Twenty-One on January 4, 2019. Red Robin filed a Motion for Removal on May 17, 2019. (ECF #1). Mr. Havens filed his Motion to Remand on May 30, 2019. (ECF #8). Mr. Haven's Motion to Remand is opposed by Defendants Red Robin and Honeywell. (ECF #15-16).

         Standard of Review

         Where removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, as it is in this case, 28 U.S.C. §1332 requires: (1) diversity of citizenship between the parties and (2) an amount in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, that exceeds $75, 000. When the amount pled does not explicitly meet the amount in controversy requirement, the defendant has the burden of proving that "more likely than not" this jurisdictional requirement has been met. Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 230 F.3d868, 871 (6th Cir. 2001).

         The general requirements of removal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), which reads:

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever is shorter.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

         28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) applies to cases that are not initially removable, but become removable at a later time. The statute provides:

[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.

28 U.S.C. ยง ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.