REV103394 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2002 U.S. Dist. ],E?CIS 15217, Conclusory allegations of jurisdiction aze insufficient, and after-the-fact-rationalizations that the defendant has met its burden will not be considered by the court. Civil Procedure > Jurisdidion > Diversity Jurisdiction > Amount to Controversy (fIN3] Where a plaintiff seeks injunctive or equitable relief related to possession of property, the amount in controversy is the value of the realty dvecily affected. The court may examine the value of the realty from the perspective of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Diversity Jurisdiction > Amount in Controversy [HN4] The additional assertions and facts proffered in defendant's later filed response to plaintiffs motion to remand are untimely; defendant should have addressed the underlying facts and should have attached any supporting affidavits to its ootice of removal. Civil Procedure > Removal > Postremoval Remands (HNS] 28 US.GS. § 1447(c) pertnits the court to awazd just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. COUNSEL: For Atchisoq Kansas, City of, The, PLAINTIFF: Greg T Spies, McDowell, Rice, Smith & Gaaz, Kansas City, MO USA. For MacZuk Industries, Ltc, DEFENDANT: Ron L $odinsoq ]aeon E Pepe, Chelsi K Hayden, Shook, Hardy & Bacon I:LP, Overland Park, KS USA. For MacZuk Industries, Inc, COUNTER-CLAIMAN'T': Roa L Bodinsoq ]anon E Pepe, Chelsi K Haydeq Shook, Hardy & Bacon L13, Overland Park, KS USA. For Atclilsoq Kansas, City of, The, COUNTPR- DEFENDANT: Greg T Spies, McDowell, Rice, Smith & Gaaz, Kansas City, MO USA. NDGES: G. Thomas VattBebber, United States Senior District Judge. OPINIONBY: G. Thomas Van Bebber OPAVION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, the City of Atchison, Kansas, filed suit in Kansas state court against Defendant, Maczuk Industries, Inc., for possession of property that Plaintiff claims Defendant has been unlawfully occupying. Defendant removed the case pursuant ]•2] to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, claiming that this court has original diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The matter is currently before the court on Plaintiffs motion to remand Page 2 (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is granted. I.BACKGROUND On May 24, 2002, Plaintiff, a Kansas municipality, filed this action in the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas, seeking possession from Defendant, a Missouri corpomtioq of a tract of land owned by Plaintiff on the west bank of the Missouri River in Atchisoq Kansas (the "Missouri River tract"). The following relevant facts are alleged in Plaintiffs state court petition or aze contained in the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs petition. ]n May 1967, Boos Brothers, avow-banlwpt company, entered into a lease with Plaintiff for the Missouri River tract. The lease was for an initial term of ten years with options to extend the lease for nine additional periods of ten years. To exercise one of the options to extend, the tenant was required to provide Plaintiff with written notice of its intention to extend the lease at least 90 -•3] days but not more than 120 days prior to the expirntion of the then-current term of the ]ease. The rental rate under the options to extend was $ 50 per yeaz: Defendant was assigned the Boos Brothers' interest in the Missouri River tract in 1977. Although Plaintiffs petition and the exhtbits attached to Tt are not entirely cleaz on the matter, it appears that Defendant properly exercised options to extend for two additional ten year periods, with the second ten year period expiring on approximately May 1, 1997. Despite the expiration of the second extension, Defendant continued to remain in possession of the tract In Mazch 2002, Plaintiff notified Defendant that the teen of the lease had expired and that Defendant bad not paid rent or odter cotnpensation for the continued use of the property. Plaintiff demanded that Defendant either enter into a new lease with Plaintiff or immediately vacate the tract. Defendant refused to do either, and Plaintiff filed suit. Plaintiff did not allege an amount in controversy in its petition, requesting only that the court "award to Plaintiff from Defendant, the possession of the Property; awazd to Plaintiff, fiom Defendant, Plaintiffs cosu (•4] of collection incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' foes; and grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper." Defendant removed the action to this court on May 31, 2002. In its notice of removal, Defendant asserts that this court has original diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the patties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. Defendant does not provide a specific accounting in iu notice of removal of how the amount in