Greene v. Wal-Mart Stores East L.P.

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/2/14. (SAC )

FILED
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
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FRENCHIE GREEN,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14-CV-01684-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand.
and recommendation

by

the

magistrate

judge

to

whom

The report
the

case

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
“already

remanded.”

Now,

the

amount

in

controversy

in

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,
“[p]unitive

damages

must

be

considered

when

determining

the

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).
In

her

complaint,

Frenchie

Green

alleges

both

that

the

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.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court will by separate order deny
plaintiff’s motion to remand.

2

DONE this 2nd day of December, 2014.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3