Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Jake Keck, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TOTAL QUALITY LOGISTICS, LLC, — : Case No. 1:26-cv-104 Plaintiff, 7 Judge Matthew W. McFarland JAKE KECK, et al., Defendants. 7 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 10) This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. 10).

On a motion to remand, the question is whether the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party removing the action to federal court bears the burden of showing that the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 757 (6th Cir. 2000). Courts construe the removal statute strictly in favor of state court jurisdiction and resolve doubts in favor of remand.

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527, 534 (6th Cir. 1999).

On February 2, 2026, Defendants removed this matter from the Court of Common Pleas for Clermont County, Ohio. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) This removal was based solely on diversity jurisdiction grounds. (Id.) Federal diversity jurisdiction involves cases in which the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A plaintiff may seek to remand a case that has been removed on diversity jurisdiction grounds back to state court by filing a “stipulation that clarifies that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold.” Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Summit Logistics Grp., LLC, 606 F. Supp. 3d 743, 748 (S.D. Ohio 2022). “So long as the language of the stipulation is sufficiently unequivocal and binding, that stipulation deprives the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Heyman v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 781 F. App’x 463, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2019)). After all, a plaintiff is the master of its complaint and may plead or stipulate to avoid federal jurisdiction. Smith v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 401, 407 (6th Cir. 2007).

Here, Plaintiff has filed a Stipulation (Doc. 9) that includes, in part, the following language: “all the requested relief [Plaintiff] seeks in this action, and will accept, as to any defendant is limited to judgment of the following in a cumulative amount that is less than $75,000.00, inclusive of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and the fair value of any injunctive relief.” Simply put, the Stipulation encompasses “all of the relief sought in [Plaintiff's] Verified Complaint.” (Stipulation, Doc. 9, Pg. ID 222.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's Stipulation unequivocally limits the amount in controversy in this case to no more than $75,000. This conclusion—which neither party disputes— comports with several of this Court's previous rulings concerning similarly worded stipulations. See Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Choephel, No. 1:23-CV-536, 2024 WL 1251092, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2024) (collecting cases). Additionally, upon review of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, no federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. The Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is GRANTED; 2. This case is REMANDED back to the Common Pleas Court for Clermont County, Ohio, for all further proceedings; 3. The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees associated with removal, subject to any further order from the Common Pleas Court for Clermont County, Ohio, as it relates to costs and fees in the case; 4, The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter this Order and mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court for Clermont County, Ohio; and 5. This matter is TERMINATED from the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Hh Wi MD By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND