Williams v. Walgreen Co

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- Pltf's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc 17 ) is DENIED for the reasons stated within. Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 4/6/18. (MRR, )

FILED
2018 Apr-06 AM 10:14
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01704-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
The court has before it the October 16, 2017 motion for partial summary
judgment filed by Plaintiff Edwin Williams. (Doc. 17). Pursuant to the court’s
initial order, the motion is fully briefed and under submission as of November 13,
2017. (Doc. 9). The motion is due to be denied for the following reasons.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, alleging violations of Alabama law based on an injury he sustained in
the parking lot of Defendant. Defendant removed the case to federal court under
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on the grounds the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (See Doc. 1). In its removal, Defendant contends the parties are
completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 2-3;
Doc. 1-2). In support of its contention regarding the amount in controversy,
1

The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 7).

Defendant notes Plaintiff claims an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages and attaches Plaintiff’s settlement demand in the amount of
$200,000. (Id.). Plaintiff did not move to remand the case to state court.
Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment argues Defendant should be
required to stipulate Plaintiff should receive at least $75,000.01, if Plaintiff proves
his case at trial. (Doc.17; Doc. 23 at 5). If Defendant will not so stipulate,
Plaintiff asks the court to remand the case because the minimum jurisdictional
amount would not be met. (Doc. 23 at 5). Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion
and contends Plaintiff’s arguments are not supported by law. (Doc. 22). The court
agrees with Defendant.
First, there is no proposition in the law holding when a complaint is removed
to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy is
met for removal purposes, a successful plaintiff is entitled to damages in an
amount over $75,000. A defendant may remove a case and contend the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, while maintaining partial or whole defenses to a
plaintiff’s claim.

Removal of a case to federal court does not serve as an

admission regarding damages. Additionally, federal jurisdiction is not destroyed
if, after the final disposition in the case, the actual amount in controversy is
something less than $75,000.

2

Moreover, if the court construes Plaintiff’s submission as a motion to
remand, it is due to be denied. A civil action brought in state court may be
removed to federal court if it could have been brought in federal court in the first
instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Typically, removal is premised either on federal
question jurisdiction or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Federal question

jurisdiction exists when the civil action arises under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction exists when the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
The party seeking removal has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1446; Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).
After removal, a party can move to remand to state court on the basis of any defect
in the removal, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
A motion based on a removal defect must be made within thirty days after the
filing of the notice of removal. Id. However, “[i]f at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded.” Id. As such, there is no time limitation on a motion to remand
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d
1184, 1214 n.64 (11th Cir. 2007). Finally, “[b]ecause removal jurisdiction raises
3

significant federalism concerns, federal courts are directed to construe removal
statutes strictly. Indeed, all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of
remand to state court.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411
(11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
Where the plaintiff does not specifically allege an amount in controversy or
the total amount in damages in the complaint, the removing defendant must prove
the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.

Leonard v.

Enterprise Rent A Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). Removal is proper if it
is “facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional requirement.”

Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319.

If the amount in

controversy is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court looks to the
notice of removal and any evidence submitted by the parties “relevant to the
amount in controversy at the time the case was removed.” Id. However, a mere
“conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is
satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is
insufficient to meet the defendant's burden.” Id. at 1319–20.
Plaintiff did not specify in his complaint an amount in controversy or how
much he was seeking in damages. In support of its contention the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant points to Plaintiff’s allegations of wanton
misconduct, as well as Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. (See Doc. 1 at 2).
4

Such allegations are not sufficient for the court to determine by a preponderance of
the evidence the value of Plaintiff’s claims, were he to prevail. Therefore, the
amount in controversy is not facially apparent from the complaint.
However, Defendant attached Plaintiff’s settlement demand in the amount of
$200,000, when it removed the case. (Id.; Doc. 2-1 at 2). The settlement demand
is admissible evidence of the amount in controversy at the time of removal.
“[N]umerous types of documents have been held to qualify” as “other paper,”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and can serve as a basis for removal. Lowery, 483 F.3d
at 1212 n.62. “They include . . . settlement offers.” Id. On the basis of Plaintiff’s
settlement letter seeking $200,000, Defendant established by a preponderance of
the evidence the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was
met and that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Accordingly, even if the
court construed the motion as a motion to remand, it is due to be denied.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is
DENIED. (Doc. 17).
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2018.

______________________________
STACI G. CORNELIUS
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5