Greene v. Wal-Mart Stores East L.P.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/2/14. (SAC )
2014 Dec-02 PM 03:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand.
originally was assigned but in which the parties did not concede
dispositive jurisdiction, recommends that the motion to remand be
granted. However, after review, this court reaches a contrary
conclusion, as reflected in the memorandum opinion that follows.
If this motion had been assigned to the undersigned four years
ago, plaintiff would be in good shape. But that was then. This is
now. That was when the initials “AR” in a diversity removal meant
28 U.S.C. § 1332 is established for jurisdictional purposes when “a
removing defendant makes specific factual allegations establishing
jurisdiction and can support them with evidence combined with
reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable
extrapolations.” Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d
744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010) (parenthesis omitted). Furthermore,
jurisdictional amount in controversy in diversity cases.” Rae v.
Perry, 392 F. App'x 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2010), citing Holley Equip.
Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 821 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1987).
Based upon the epiphany forced upon this court by the Eleventh
Circuit, this court has recently explained that “plaintiffs . . .
who want to pursue claims against diverse parties in a state court
seeking unspecified damages of various kinds, such as punitive
damages and emotional distress, must in their complaint formally
and expressly disclaim any entitlement to more than $74,999.99, and
categorically state that plaintiff will never accept more.” Smith
v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1335 (N.D.
Ala. 2012) (emphasis added).
defendant’s negligence caused her to suffer mental anguish and that
its wantonness entitles her to punitive damages. (Doc. 3 at 11-16).
Plaintiff conspicuously makes no formal or express disclaimer to
damages in excess of $74,999. (Doc. 3 at 9-17). Therefore, under
up-to-date Eleventh Circuit jurisprudence it is apparent that the
amount in controversy in this case exceeds the sum of $75,000.
For these reasons, the court will by separate order deny
plaintiff’s motion to remand.
DONE this 2nd day of December, 2014.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?