Payne v. Baltazar et al
ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/12/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DON EARL PAYNE
CASE NO: 3:14CV00213 BSM
CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC;
CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC
Plaintiff Don Earl Payne’s motion to remand [Doc. No. 7] is denied. Payne is an
Arkansas resident who filed this case in the Crittenden County Circuit Court against three
citizens of other states for injuries sustained in a car accident. He is seeking compensatory
damages in a “sum of $75,000 or less,” and punitive damages. Defendants removed the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) and Payne moves to remand.
Diversity jurisdiction depends on complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000. Northport Health Servs. of Arkansas, LLC v. Rutherford,
605 F.3d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 2010). Because there is complete diversity, the only question is
whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. See In re Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 346 F.3d 830, 834
(8th Cir. 2003). In making this determination, courts rely on the operative complaint at the
time of removal. Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 789-90 (8th Cir.
2012). Because the case has already been removed, it is too late for Payne to file a binding
stipulation reflecting that he will not seek damages greater than $75,000. See Hargis v.
Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 789 (8th Cir. 2012). The amount in controversy
is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not an assessment of liability. Raskas
v. Johnson & Johnson, 719 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir. 2013).
Payne’s motion to remand is denied because the record indicates that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. This is true because Payne is asserting compensatory damages
in a sum equal to, or less than $75,000, and punitive damages. Should Payne receive
compensatory damages in an amount “equal to” $75,000 and one dollar in punitive damages,
his award will exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
For these reasons, Payne's motion to remand [Doc. No. 7] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 2014.
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?