IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`NASHVILLE DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`) Case No.__________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) JURY DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`)
`
`KELCIE INGRAM and CYNTHIA
`INGRAM,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
`LIMEBIKE a/k/a LIME,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT NEUTRON HOLDINGS. INC.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,1441, and 1446, Defendant
`
`NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a LIME (“Lime”) removes this action styled Kelcie Ingram
`
`and Cynthia Ingram v. Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a LIMEBIKE a/k/a LIME, from the Circuit
`
`Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, to the United States District Court for the Middle District
`
`of Tennessee.
`
`As explained below, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
`
`has original subject matter jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and
`
`1441 et seq. because complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant and the amount
`
`in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Lime respectfully states to this
`
`Court as follows:
`
`1. A civil action originally entitled Kelcie Ingram and Cynthia Ingram v. Neutron
`
`Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Limebike a/k/a Lime, No. 19C2862 was filed on December 6, 2019 in the
`
`Circuit Court for Davidson County, the 20th Judicial District of Tennessee. (Ex. 1, Complaint). In
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
`
`

`

`their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege negligence against Lime arising from a December 29, 2018
`
`scooter accident involving Plaintiff Kelcie Ingram.
`
`2.
`
`The Circuit Court for Davidson County, Nashville, Tennessee, is located in the area
`
`that constitutes the Middle District of Tennessee. Venue for this action is proper in this Court
`
`because the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, is the “district and division
`
`embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
`
`3.
`
`Lime was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 13,2019. (Ex. 1,
`
`CT Corp. Service of Process Transmittal). Lime filed this Notice of Removal on January 10,2019.
`
`Therefore, removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
`
`4.
`
`Defendant will promptly file a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal with
`
`the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Davidson County, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
`
`5.
`
`Written Notice of Filing the Notice of Removal will be given promptly to the
`
`Plaintiffs after filing this Notice of Removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
`
`6.
`
`Attached to this Notice of Removal, and by reference made a part hereof, are true
`
`and correct copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Lime in the aforesaid action,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). (Ex. 1, Summons and Complaint).
`
`7.
`
`By filing this Notice of Removal, Lime does not waive any defenses that may be
`
`available to it, including but not limited to contractual defenses and compelling arbitration.
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, an action is generally removable if it could have
`
`originally been brought in federal court. This action could have originally been brought in federal
`
`court on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
`
`

`

`9.
`
`This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
`
`because this Court embraces the pending action, Defendant is not a citizen of the same state as
`
`either Plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`Diversify of Citizenship
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs Kacie Ingram and Cynthia were residents of Tennessee at the time of
`
`filing the Complaint and at the time of the filing of this Notice of Removal. (Ex. 1., Compl. ^ 1).
`
`11.
`
`For purposes of determining its citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), Lime is
`
`a citizen of the State of Delaware and the State of California because at the time of filing the
`
`Complaint and at the time of filing this Notice of Removal, Lime is incorporated in the State of
`
`Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of California. (Ex. 2, Affidavit of Kevin
`
`Bajurin, 12).
`
`12.
`
`Accordingly, there is complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiffs are citizens
`
`of Tennessee and Defendant is a citizen of California and Delaware.
`
`13.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) does not restrict removal because no defendant is a citizen of
`
`the State of Tennessee. (Ex. 2, Affidavit of Kevin Bajurin, f3).
`
`Amount in Controversy
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`15.
`
`“[A]s specified in § 1446, a defendant’s notice of removal need only include a
`
`plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart
`
`Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Therefore, Plaintiffs’
`
`complaint filed in state court demanding $750,000, if asserted in good faith, is “deemed to be the
`
`amount in controversy.” Id. (citing § 1446(c)(2)).
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
`
`

`

`16.
`
`For diversity removal, “the general rule is that the amount claimed by a plaintiff in
`
`his complaint determines the amount in controversy, unless it spears to a legal certainty that the
`
`claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Rosen v. Chrysler Corp., 205 F.3d 918, 920-21
`
`(6th Cir. 2000). In this case there are two plaintiffs. “To satisfy the amount-in-controversy
`
`requirement at least one plaintiffs claim must independently meet the amount-in-controversy
`
`specification.” Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir. 2006).
`
`17.
`
`The complaint alleges that on December 29, 2018, then-seventeen-year-old Kelcie
`
`Ingram fell and injured herself riding a Lime scooter. (Ex. 1, Complaint 23, 27). Kelcie Ingram
`
`must be an adult at the time of removal, as more than a year has passed since December 29, 2018.
`
`The Complaint also asserts a claim by Cynthia Ingram, Kelcie’s mother.
`
`18.
`
`Kelcie Ingram’s claim satisfies the amount in controversy—a seventeen-year-old
`
`allegedly suffered “serious and painful personal injuries which required and continue to require
`
`medical treatment,” (Ex. 1, Complaint | 27), and “permanent disability and impairments,” (Id.
`
`37(E)). The damages are alleged to also include past and future medical expenses; past and future
`
`pain and suffering; past and future mental anguish; past and future loss of enjoyment of life;
`
`disfigurement; and loss of earning capacity. (Id. f 37). The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs seek
`
`damages up to $750,000, ten times the amount in controversy threshold. (Ex. 1, Complaint p. 7, |
`
`2). It is clear from the face of the complaint that the amount in controversy on Kelcie Ingram’s
`
`claim exceeds $75,000.
`
`19.
`
`If for some reason Cynthia Ingram’s claim is alleged to be derivative of Kelcie’s
`
`claim, then Cynthia’s claim satisfies the amount in controversy. Whomever holds the claim for
`
`compensation related to Kelcie Ingram’s injury, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs seek damages
`
`up to $750,000, ten times the amount in controversy threshold. (Ex. 1, Complaint p. 7, ^ 2).
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
`
`

`

`20. Additionally, a settlement demand letter provides “some evidence” of the amount
`
`in controversy. MetLife Sec., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-32, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95017, at *
`
`(Jul. 21, 2016) (citing Shupe v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 566 Fed. App’x 476, 480-81 (6th Cir.
`
`2014)). Plaintiffs allege that Kelcie Ingram broke her right ankle as a result of falling from the
`
`Lime scooter. (Ex. 3, 9/20/19 Settlement Demand at 3). The medical expenses allegedly associated
`
`with the treatment total $22,585.85. (Id. at 6). The settlement demand letter alleges that Kelcie
`
`Ingram continues to experience leg pain, and “[s]he worries whether the lasting effects of this
`
`injury will affect her long-term career and the necessity to be on her feet as a registered nurse.”
`
`(Id.) The plaintiffs’ counsel demanded $425,000 to settle the case, more than five times the
`
`amount-in-controversy threshold. (Id.) Under these circumstances, the settlement demand is
`
`independent evidence that Kelcie Ingram’s claim exceeds $75,000.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lime, gives notice that the action captioned Kelcie Ingram,
`
`and Cynthia Ingram, v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Limebike a/k/a Lime, No. 19C2862, pending
`
`in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, the 20th Judicial District, Nashville, Tennessee, is
`
`removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 et seq.
`
`Is/ Travis B. Swearingen________________
`Travis B. Swearingen (Term. Bar No. 25717)
`Robert R. McLeod (Term. Bar No. 036120)
`Butler Snow LLP
`150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1600
`Nashville, Tennessee 37201
`(615)651-6700
`T ravi s. Swearingen@butlersnow.com
`Robert.McLeod@butlersnow.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served via the U.S. District Court’s
`
`ECF filing system, upon the following:
`
`Ali Toll (Term. Bar No. 025732)
`Rocky McElhaney (Term. Bar No. 20205)
`475 Saundersville Road
`Hendersonville, Tennessee 37075
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`on this 10th day of January, 2020.
`
`/s/ Travis B. Swearingen
`Travis B. Swearingen
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00037 Document 1 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
`
`