Wester v. Love et al
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on October 1, 2014. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
. Case No. 3:14-CV-03071
RODNEY LOVE d/b/a "HEARTS OF LOVE"
Defendant removed the instant matter to this Court 'from the Circuit Court of Searcy
County, Arkansas, on July 14, 2014. (Doc. 1). The notice of removal stated that the basis
for federal jurisdiction was the complete diversity of citizenship of the parties 1 and the
existence of the $75 ,000 minimum amount in controversy, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
The Complaint for breach of contract claimed (1) $50,650.35 in compensatory damages,
(2) an unspecified amount of punitive damages, and (3) Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs.
The Court held a case management hearing on October 1, 2014, during which
counsel for both parties appeared by telephone. At the hearing, Plaintiff moved to dismiss
her claim for punitive damages, and the motion was granted from the bench. The Court
then inquired of Defendant's counsel whether the remaining claimed damages were
sufficient to meet the statutory minimum of $75,000.
Counsel's response was
In the Court's view, the facially plausible damages set forth in the Complaint consist
of approximately two months of unpaid wages-based on a yearly salary of $50,000 per
year-less $1,750 in wage payments that Plaintiff admits she received, plus $650 in
1 At the time of removal, another defendant, Frank Minirth, was present in the lawsuit. Mr.
Minirth was dismissed on July 22, 2014.
unreimbursed expenses, plus attorney fees and costs. At most, this amounts to less than
$5,000 and is plainly insufficient to meet federal jurisdictional requirements. Even if the
amount in controversy were valued at $50,650, as demanded in the Complaint, this is
almost $25,000 under the jurisdictional threshold and seems unsupported by the
Adding a reasonable attorney fee to Plaintiffs own calculation of
damages would still not meet the $75,000 minimum necessary for federal jurisdiction.
This Court has an affirmative duty to ensure that any claims before it are within its
subject-matter jurisdiction. Crawford v. United States, 796 F.2d 924, 928 (7th Cir. 1986).
The removing party has the burden of showing that jurisdiction in the federal courts is
proper and the requisite amount in controversy has been met. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th Cir. 1969). Federal courts must strictly construe the
federal removal statute and resolve any ambiguities about federal jurisdiction in favor of
remand. Transit Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 119 F.3d 619,
625 (8th Cir. 1997).
Here, Defendant failed to establish that the minimum amount in controversy was
met and that Court should continue to exert subject-matter jurisdiction over this case
following the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. Therefore, IT 15
HEREBY ORDERED that the case be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Searcy County,
Arkansas, for further disposition.
IT 15 50 ORDERED this
~day of October, 201
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?