Egan v. Premier Scales & Systems

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• asserting that this classification was “consistent with the position adopted by the Sixth Circuit [in Rogers] prohibiting reductions or changes from claims in the[] initial complaint”
• finding stipulation to be a clarification where complaint only stated that “[p]laintiff’s claim exceed[ed] the minimum threshold amount for this Court”
• finding this principle is consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s prohibition on post-removal reductions and with other districts where the state prohibits plaintiffs from making specific demands in the complaint
• rejecting as “less than unequivocal” a post-removal stipulation that the plaintiff “w[ould] accept a sum of $74,990 exclusive of interest and costs as a judgment regardless of what any court finds in excess of that amount”
• same, denying remand when plaintiff's statement was “less than unequivocal” and did not sufficiently limit damages
• “[W]here a plaintiff provides specific information about the amount in controversy for the first time, it should be deemed a clarification rather than a change.” (citing Cole, 728 F. Supp. at 1305)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).