govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_22-cv-00205-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
CLARA SIKORSKI, 
 Plaintiff, 
 v. 
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, ET 
AL., 
 Defendants. 
 
 
Civil No. 3:22cv205 (JBA) 
 
July 5, 2023 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND 
Plaintiff Clara Sikorski moves [Doc. # 1] to remand this case to the Superior Court of 
the State of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 
arguing that this case involves an amount in controversy not exceeding  $75,000. The case 
asserts her state law negligence claims in connection with a trip and fall that occurred at the 
Stratford, Connecticut Wal-Mart store. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered numerous injuries 
as a result of Wal-Mart’s alleged negligence, but now submits a stipulation in which she states 
that the amount in controversy as a result of her injuries does not meet the $75,000 
threshold to establish diversity jurisdiction. Defendants object [Doc. # 17]  and argue that 
Plaintiff has failed to show that the amount in controversy is actually limited to  $75,000, in 
light of the open-ended nature of the damages at issue. 
I. Background 
Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants alleging their negligence caused her to trip 
and fall, and has pled various injuries related to that incident, including: 
• a triquetral fracture of the right wrist, 
• sprains, strains and contusion to the right upper extremity, including contusions and 
sprains of the shoulder, elbow and hand, 
Case 3:22-cv-00205-OAW     Document 18     Filed 07/05/23     Page 1 of 5
2 
 
• a head injury including contusion and hematoma, and 
• a left knee injury. 
(Complaint [Doc. # 1-1], Ex. A to Defs.’ Petition for Removal at 5). 
Plaintiff alleges that “as a further result of this incident, the plaintiff has been forced 
to incur financial obligations for medical care and treatment and diagnostic studies, and will 
likely be obligated for further such sums in the future, all to [her] further loss and detriment.” 
(Id. at 6.) She further alleges that she “endured physical and mental pain and suffering, an 
inability to engage in her usual activities a nd a loss of enjoyment of life's activities.” ( Id.) 
Plaintiff is seeking money damages, interest and costs and such other relief as the Court may 
deem fair and equitable. (Id.) Plaintiff does not identify a specific amount of damages she is 
seeking in the Complaint. 
On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Petition for Removal on the basis of diversity 
jurisdiction. (Defs.’ Pet. for Removal [Doc. # 1].) Plaintiff does not dispute that there is 
diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, but argues remand is required  
because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. ( Pl.’s Mot. at 1 .) Plaintiff 
attaches to her motion a stipulation that “the full value  of the matter and, ‘the case and 
controversy’ of the above captioned case does not exceed $75,000 and that her claimed 
damages are $75,000 or less. However, should the plaintiff receive additional treatment, 
including but not limited to surgery and other like treatment, that increases the value of the 
plaintiff’s case in excess of $75,000, the plaintiff agrees that the matter should be returned 
to Federal Court for all purposes . . . .” (Id. at 4.) 
 Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s stipulation is insufficient to justify remand, as 
the stipulation expressly leaves open the possibility that Plaintiff’s damages may exceed 
$75,000. (Defs.’ Obj. to Mot. to Remand [Doc. # 17].)  
Case 3:22-cv-00205-OAW     Document 18     Filed 07/05/23     Page 2 of 5
3 
 
II. Legal Standard 
When a case is originally brought in state court, a party may remove “any civil action 
. . . of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” except “as 
otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress.” 28 U.S. C. § 1441.  The diversity statute 
confers federal court jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value 
of $ 75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[A] defendant's notice of removal need include only a 
plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” but 
“when plaintiff contests,  or the court questions, the defendant's allegation,” then the 
defendant must submit “[e] vidence establishing ” the amount in controversy “by a 
preponderance of the evidence.” D art Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 
81, 89 (2014).1 Dart thus confirms that when a motion to remand is brought, “[t] he party 
opposing a motion to remand bears the burden of showing that the requirements for 
removal are satisfied.” D.B. Structured Prod., Inc. v. Savvidis, No. 3:21-CV-388 (VAB), 2022 WL 
73486, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 7, 2022) . “The Second Circuit has characterized this burden as 
‘hardly onerous ’ because it recognizes a ‘ rebuttable presumption that the face of the 
complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy .’ To overcome 
that presumption, the party opposing jurisdiction . . . must show ‘to a legal certainty’ that the 
amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold.” Howard v. Anthem, Inc., No. 
3:22-CV-476 (SVN), 2022 WL 15261908, at *2 (D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2022)  (quoting Scherer v. 
Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U.S ., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003) . Such a showing can be 
made with a stipulation when “first, the amou nt of damages is unclear from the face of the 
complaint, and, second, both the plaintiff and her counsel stipulate that they will not seek 
more than $75,000 in damages.” Id. at *3.
   
 
1 Unless otherwise indicated, internal citations, quotation marks, and other alterations are 
omitted throughout in text quoted from court decisions. 
Case 3:22-cv-00205-OAW     Document 18     Filed 07/05/23     Page 3 of 5
4 
 
III. Discussion 
Given the significant injuries alleged by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s own concession that 
damages may at some point exceed $75,000 (Pl.’s Mot. at 4), the Court finds that “Defendant 
has met its burden of establishing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy 
exceeds $75,000 .” Howard, 2022 WL 15261908, at * 4. “The burden therefore shifts to 
Plaintiff, as the party opposing federal jurisdiction, to establish to a ‘legal certainty’ that her 
damages would not exceed $75,000.” Id. Plaintiff’s stipulation is insufficient to demonstrate 
such “legal certainty.”  Plaintiff claims significant injuries, including head injuries. The 
stipulation fails to commit Plaintiff to recovering no more than $75,000 in damages—to the 
contrary, it expressly contemplates that Plaintiff’s injuries and treatment may end up 
supporting a damage award in excess of that amount. 
In Howard, the plaintiff initially sought remand by filing a stipulation that merely 
stated the plaintiff “will not seek more than $75,000 damages in this matter.” Id. at *4. After 
defendants argued that stipulation was insufficient, the plaintiff submitted a revised 
stipulation with more robust language, providing in relevant part that:  
that the plaintiff would not seek a judgment in excess of $75,000; that no 
judgment would enter against the defendant for an amount greater than 
$75,000; that the plaintiff agreed any verdict greater than $75,000 awarded 
by a fact finder would be reduced to $75,000; and that if the plaintiff joined 
additional defendants wh o were agents, employees, or servants of the 
defendant, the total judgment against all such defendants would not exceed 
$75,000. 
Id. The court noted in granting the motion to remand that the revised stipulation “clarifie[d] 
the otherwise ambiguous amount in controversy from the complaint” and provided, “in no 
uncertain terms, that [the p]laintiff will be limited to an award of $75,000,  exclusive of 
interest and costs, even if a fact finder were to award her more than that amount.” Id . at *4-
5.  
 Plaintiff’s stipulation does not resemble the final stipulation in Howard. Not only does 
Plaintiff’s stipulation fail to state that a verdict in excess of $75,000 would be reduced – it 
Case 3:22-cv-00205-OAW     Document 18     Filed 07/05/23     Page 4 of 5
5 
 
expressly contemplates that Plaintiff may receive additional treatment increasing the value 
of Plaintiff’s claim. (Pl.’s Mot. at 4.) The fact that Plaintiff stipulates that she  would then 
consent to return the matter to Federal Court is irrelevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff 
can show “to a legal certainty " now that the amount recoverable does not meet the 
jurisdictional threshold. Here, Plaintiff’s stipulation fails to demonstrate such certainty. 
IV. Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 ___________________/s/________________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 5th day of July, 2023 
 
Case 3:22-cv-00205-OAW     Document 18     Filed 07/05/23     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight