Fletcher v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARIA FLETCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1170
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
Plaintiff Maria Fletcher brought this personal injury action in state court. 	Defendant
Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,
which requires complete diversity of the parties and an amount in controversy that exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she sustained “severe injuries including
but not limited to her right arm” after Defendant’s automatic door malfunctioned and closed on
her arm. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify an amount of damages,
other than the fact that the damages exceed $25,000. Not satisfied that these allegations could be
fairly read to allege an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the Court ordered Defendant
to show cause why the Court should not remand the case for lack of jurisdiction. (4/13/2026 Order,
ECF No. 5.) Before the Court is Defendant’s response to the Court’s order.
As the Court indicated in its previous order, “Courts have an independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” 	Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). 	When “a plaintiff claims an unspecified amount in
damages, a defendant seeking removal under diversity jurisdiction must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold.”
Naji v. Lincoln, 665 F. App’x 397, 400–01 (6th Cir. 2016). 	“[C]ourts may use their judicial
Case 1:26-cv-01170-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 1
of 3

2
experience and common sense in determining whether the case stated in a complaint meets federal
jurisdictional requirements.” Id. at 401 n.2 (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058,
1062 (11th Cir. 2010)). Among other things, a removing defendant “may rely on a ‘fair reading
of [the plaintiffs’] complaint’ to establish the amount in controversy.” US Framing Int’l LLC v.
Cont’l Bldg. Co., 134 F.4th 423, 429 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co.,
266 F.3d 560, 573 (6th Cir. 2001)). In this case, however, the Court is not persuaded that a fair
read of the complaint establishes the amount in controversy.
Defendant argues that, in its attorney’s experience, it is “rare” for a plaintiff claiming
personal injury to seek damages less than $75,000. (Def.’s Resp. Br. 3, ECF No. 6.) According
to counsel, it would be “unusual” for a personal injury plaintiff to not demand or pursue damages
greater than $75,000. (Id.) However, counsel’s general experience with personal injury litigants
is not evidence, let alone evidence that applies to this particular case. Thus, Defendant’s argument
does not satisfy its evidentiary burden.
Alternatively, Defendant argues that the Court should require Plaintiff to identify her
damages or to clarify whether she seeks more than $75,000. 	But Defendant provides no authority
for this approach. Indeed, some courts discourage post-removal discovery regarding jurisdiction
because it would “frustrat[e] the limited nature of federal jurisdiction by encouraging defendants
to remove, at best, prematurely, and at worst, in cases in which they will never be able to establish
jurisdiction.” 	Knox Hills, LLC v. Ambac Assur. Corp., No. 3:14-CV-00841-DJH, 2015 WL
1298622, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2015) (quoting Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1217
(11th Cir. 2007)).
Moreover, it is not Plaintiff’s burden to establish federal jurisdiction. Defendant can and
should use the discovery process available in state court to determine the amount in controversy
Case 1:26-cv-01170-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 3

3
before removing the case to this Court. See Arguedas v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 2023 WL 98665
at *2 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2024) (“To determine whether the amount in controversy allows removal
to federal court, parties often engage in pre-removal discovery.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(3)
(permitting removal “within 30 days after receipt by the defendant . . . 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”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to Ingham County Circuit Court.
Dated: April 21, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01170-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 3