Major v. Diageo North America, Inc.

Background

Eboni Major moved to vacate, or set aside, the court’s June 6, 2022 memorandum and order denying her motion to remand the case to state court. The court treated the new motion as a motion for reconsideration. Major also asked the court to consider reply papers filed after the briefing deadline. Her counsel attributed the late filing to personal circumstances and a misunderstanding of the schedule. Although late arguments ordinarily may not be considered, the court considered them here.

Arguments and Analysis

Major argued that Diageo improperly relied on settlement negotiations and a newspaper article to show that the amount in controversy—the amount potentially at stake—exceeded $75,000. She contended that those materials were inadmissible hearsay and barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 408. The court rejected that basis for reconsideration, explaining that settlement figures may be considered to show the stakes of a case when deciding whether the jurisdictional amount is met. The court also stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not necessarily apply strictly to the preliminary question of whether removal jurisdiction exists.

Major further argued that Diageo had not shown that she made a settlement demand when the case was filed or identified the exact amount of that demand. The court stated that the relevant question was whether, when the case was removed, there was a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 was at stake. Diageo’s counsel had submitted a declaration stating that the parties had attempted to settle before removal and that Major’s settlement demands had not been less than a seven-figure amount. The court concluded that the case was removable when the notice of removal was filed.

The court also rejected Major’s argument that the burden of proof had been shifted to her. It stated that its earlier decision placed the burden on Diageo and concluded that Diageo had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the claim exceeded the jurisdictional amount. Finally, although Major’s argument that removal was premature had not been raised in her initial motion, the court considered it and rejected it. The court distinguished an earlier decision because Diageo relied not only on a proposed damages stipulation that Major refused to sign, but also on the state-court complaint and other evidence supporting the amount in controversy.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Major’s motion for reconsideration. The order therefore did not vacate the June 6 order denying remand. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims between Major and Diageo; it addresses whether the earlier ruling on removal and remand should be reconsidered.