Nicholson v. Buckeye Forest at North Olmsted, LLC

Nicholson · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · March 24, 2026 · No. 1:25CV2289

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Pam Sue Nicholson’s motion to remand her age-discrimination action against Buckeye Forest at North Olmsted, LLC. The court held that a telephonic settlement demand, an email referring to an unreasonable demand without stating an amount, and the amended complaint did not provide the solid and unambiguous information required to trigger the 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The court concluded that the defendant timely removed the case after receiving sworn discovery responses establishing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Holdings

  1. A verbal settlement demand communicated by telephone, together with an email that confirmed discussion of an unreasonable demand without stating a dollar amount, did not constitute sufficient notice of removability under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
  2. The amended complaint did not trigger the 30-day removal period because its prayer for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $25,000, plus fees and costs, did not provide facts or a definitive claimed amount showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
  3. Defendant timely removed the action because plaintiff's sworn discovery responses provided solid and unambiguous information that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and the action therefore satisfied diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff's telephonic settlement demand and defense counsel's follow-up email constituted an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper providing notice of removability under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
  2. Whether plaintiff's amended complaint provided sufficient information to trigger the 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
  3. Whether defendant timely removed the action after receiving plaintiff's sworn discovery responses establishing an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (18)

  • Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)(followed)
  • Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(followed)
  • Crabtree v. Wal-Mart, 2006 WL 897210, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2006)(followed)
  • Richmond v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 919 F. Supp. 107 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)(followed)
  • Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 (1939)(followed)
  • Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 540 (6th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Owens v. Brock, 860 F.2d 1363, 1367 (6th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Gafford v. General Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Cole v. Great Atl. & Pacific Tea Co., 728 F. Supp. 1305, 1307 (E.D. Ky. 1990)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…