UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 22, 2008
MICHAEL J. OBERLE, PLAINTIFF,
SOLID PLATFORMS, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
On July 2, 2008, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff brought this litigation in state court seeking compensation for injuries that he allegedly suffered after falling from a piece of scaffolding that he contends was not properly secured by Defendant. Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand the action, asserting that his damages do not exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. However, in response to a request to admit that his damages will not exceed the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs, Plaintiff responded that "at this time the value does not exceed $75,000" but that if he undergoes the surgery that has been recommended by his physician, his damages would exceed $75,000. Plaintiff further denied that he would not ever claim more than $75,000. Given these assertions and the claims in the Complaint for future medical treatment and impairment, the Court concurs with the recommendation that the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy has been established to the required degree of certainty to remain in Federal Court.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#12] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand [#5] is DENIED, and this matter is again referred to Magistrate Judge Cudmore for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2008.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.