Shelton v. Ruffin et al

Filing 16

Order granting 12 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Allen B. Shelton. The plaintiff is ordered to file and serve his proposed amended complaint on or before 4/4/2017. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 3/28/2017. (nah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLEN B. SHELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINT RUFFIN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 16-0606-WS-C
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
the complaint. (Doc. 12). The defendant declined the opportunity to object, (Doc.
13), and the motion is ripe for resolution. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
The plaintiff is ordered to file and serve his proposed amended complaint, (Doc.
12-1), on or before April 4, 2017.1
DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

The plaintiff appears to believe that, once this motion is granted and the
amended complaint filed, he will be able to achieve remand to state court. He is
mistaken. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction depends on the complaint as it
exists at the time of removal, not later, and the Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to
remand establishes that subject matter jurisdiction existed at the critical time. The
amended complaint does not reduce the amount in controversy below $75,000 (it merely
omits the explicit demand for more than $75,000), but even if it did so, “post-removal
amendments to the complaint to reduce the damages claimed … do not oust the district
court’s jurisdiction.” Nelson v. Whirlpool Corp., 727 F. Supp.2d 1294, 1301 (S.D. Ala.
2010) (internal quotes omitted). The plaintiff’s contrary reading of Section 1447(c) is
foreclosed by binding precedent. Poore v. American-Amicable Life Insurance Co., 218
F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds, Alvarez v.
Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007); accord PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE
USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 2016).