Debra Jones v. Wells Fargo Company
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00432-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999987603].. [15-2403]
Appeal: 15-2403
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/15/2016
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2403
DEBRA S. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO COMPANY; JOSHUA HODGIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00432-D)
Submitted:
November 30, 2016
Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
December 15, 2016
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Cedric R. Perry, PERRY & ASSOCIATES, Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John G. McDonald, Meredith A. Pinson,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2403
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/15/2016
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Debra S. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying
her motion to remand her civil negligence action against her
former employer and her supervisor to state court and granting
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
is
not
precluded
by
North
Jones argues that her claim
Carolina’s
workers’
compensation
statute and that the district court erred in concluding, first,
that
Defendant
Joshua
Hodgin
was
fraudulently
joined
and,
second, that, on its face, the amended complaint filed in state
court
satisfied
the
jurisdictional
amount
required
maintaining a diversity action in federal court.
that
the
district
jurisdictional
court
amount
erred
was
in
its
established
We conclude
finding
as
a
for
matter
that
of
the
law.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand with directions
to remand the action to state court.
We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction,
including
the
propriety
of
removal
and
fraudulent
joinder.
Johnson v. Am. Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 701 (4th Cir. 2015).
“Although
the
plaintiff
is
generally
the
master
of
[her]
complaint, [28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2012)] allows a defendant to
remove certain claims originally brought in state court into
federal court.”
King v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 337 F.3d 421, 424
(4th Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The
party
seeking
removal
bears
2
the
burden
of
establishing
Appeal: 15-2403
Doc: 35
federal
Filed: 12/15/2016
subject
matter
Pg: 3 of 5
jurisdiction.
Hoschar
Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 169 (4th Cir. 2014).
established
federalism
concerns,
removal
v.
Appalachian
In light of well-
jurisdiction
must
be
strictly construed, and “if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a
remand to state court is necessary.”
Inc.,
369
F.3d
811,
816
(4th
Dixon v. Coburg Dairy,
Cir.
2004)
(per
curiam)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2012), district courts
have original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of
different states.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
A corporation is
deemed a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and
where
it
has
§ 1332(c)(1)
its
principal
(2012).
place
Complete
of
business.
diversity
must
28
exist
U.S.C.
for
a
federal court to exercise jurisdiction; therefore, a plaintiff
cannot
be
a
citizen
of
the
same
state
as
any
defendant.
Johnson, 781 F.3d at 704.
The district court denied Jones’ motion to remand in part
based
on
its
finding
that
the
individual
fraudulently joined in the action.
defendant
had
been
We need not review that
determination, however, as we conclude that removal fails on the
alternative ground that Defendants failed to establish with the
requisite certainty the amount in controversy.
3
Appeal: 15-2403
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/15/2016
Pg: 4 of 5
“If diversity of citizenship . . . provides the grounds for
removal, then the sum demanded in good faith in the initial
pleading
shall
be
deemed
to
be
the
amount
in
controversy.”
Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
“If a complaint does not
allege a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy
exceeds
$75,000.”
quotation marks omitted).
Id.
(alterations
and
internal
Our review of the record convinces us
that the removing Defendants did not satisfy their burden in the
instant case.
$10,000”
in
Although Jones sought an amount “in excess of
damages
that
included
past
and
future
mental
suffering (and treatment costs for same) and loss wages, there
is no sound basis in the record for a conclusion as a matter of
law that the amount genuinely in dispute exceeds $75,000.
The
district court’s finding that “[t]he amended complaint . . .
makes clear that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,”
cannot be sustained on this record. *
*
The amended complaint is rife with allegations of Jones’
pre-existing mental disability, including an award of social
security disability benefits prior to her employment with Wells
Fargo, which lasted for no more than 12 to 16 months. Thus, on
the face of the complaint, it is far from clear what her damages
claims amount to or what amount she has put at issue.
Rather
than offering evidence to support its removal of the case, and
thereby satisfy its burden to show the existence of federal
jurisdiction, Defendants argued in their response to the motion
(Continued)
4
Appeal: 15-2403
Doc: 35
Filed: 12/15/2016
Pg: 5 of 5
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter
to the district court with directions to remand this action to
the
Superior
Court
of
Nash
County.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
to remand that Jones had offered “no evidence” to support her
contention that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied. In
making such an argument, the Defendants got the law exactly
backward. Francis, 709 F.3d at 367.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?