VAUGHAN v. RYDER CAPITAL SERVICES CORPORATION et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 09/18/2015. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
KENNETH VAUGHAN,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

RYDER CAPITAL SERVICES
CORPORATION, RYDER INTEGRATED
LOGISTICS, INC., RYDER TRUCK
RENTAL, INC., RYDER FLEET
PRODUCTS, INC., RYDER SERVICES
CORPORATION, and RYDER
DEDICATED LOGISTICS, INC.,

*

Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-74 (CDL)

*
*
*
*

O R D E R
Plaintiff
Muscogee

Kenneth

County

Vaughan

Superior

Court

generally Compl., ECF No. 1-2.
Complaint the same day.

filed
on

his

Complaint

December

23,

in

2014.

the
See

He served Defendants with the

Vaughan, a truck driver, alleges that

he fell from Defendants’ semi truck onto a parking lot because
Defendants had removed a “deck plate” from the truck and failed
to warn him about it.

Compl. ¶ 15.

Vaughan asserts that he

suffered “severe injuries to his left arm” due to the fall.
¶

16.

He

also

alleges

that

he

had

to

undergo

Id.

“numerous

surgeries” for his injuries before filing his Complaint, that
his injuries “are permanent in nature,” that “he will never
fully

recover,”

and

that

his

injuries

“have

significantly

impacted [his] quality of life.”

Id.

Vaughn seeks past and

future pain and suffering damages for the “serious, painful, and
permanent injuries to his body and mind.”
seeks past and future lost wages.
and future medical expenses.

Id. ¶¶ 20, 22.

Id. ¶ 21.

He

And he seeks past

Id. ¶ 22.

Defendants filed a notice of removal on May 15, 2015, more
than 140 days after service of the Complaint.

Although it is

clear from the face of the Complaint that there is complete
diversity of citizenship, Defendants contend that they could not
determine
until

whether

April

17,

the

amount

2015,

when

in

controversy

Vaughan

exceeded

served

$75,000

Defendants

with

interrogatory responses that more fully spelled out his damages.
Vaughan filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 6) arguing that the
amount in controversy was facially apparent from the Complaint
and

that

Defendants’

removal

was

thus

untimely.

The

Court

agrees with Vaughan.
A notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 days after
the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a
copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief
upon

which

such

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

action

or

proceeding

is

based.”

“When the complaint does not claim a

specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper
if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.

2

Williams v.

Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001).

“Eleventh

Circuit precedent permits district courts to make ‘reasonable
deductions,

reasonable

inferences,

or

other

reasonable

extrapolations’ from the pleadings to determine whether it is
facially apparent that a case is removable.”

Roe v. Michelin N.

Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 770 (11th
Cir. 2010).

“Put simply, a district court need not ‘suspend

reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face
of a complaint . . . establishes the jurisdictional amount.’”
Id. at 1062 (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 770).
Here,

based

on

common

sense,

reasonable

deductions

and

judicial experience, it is facially apparent from the Complaint
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Vaughan alleges

that he suffered “severe” and “permanent” injuries to his arm
that “significantly impacted [his] quality of life” and from
which he will “never fully recover.”

Compl. ¶ 16.

He further

alleges that his injuries required “numerous surgeries” as of
the date he filed his Complaint.

Id.

He seeks past and future

medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, and past
and future lost wages.

Based on these allegations, the Court is

satisfied that it is facially apparent from Vaughan’s Complaint
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

See Roe, 613

F.3d at 1063 (summarizing cases where courts found

3

that the

amount

in

controversy

exceeded

$75,000

based

on

allegations

similar to Vaughan’s).1
Defendants

emphasize

that

when

a

case

is

not

removable

based on the initial pleading, “notice of removal may be filed
within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service
or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or
other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case
is

one

which

is

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(3).

or

has

become

removable.”

But as discussed above, this case

was removable based on the initial pleading, so Defendants were
required to file the notice of removal by January 22, 2015.
They did not do so.

Removal was thus untimely.

Vaughan’s

Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) is granted, and this action is
remanded to the Muscogee County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of September, 2015.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

The Court notes that in Williams, the Eleventh Circuit found that the
plaintiff’s damages were not facially apparent from the complaint
where the plaintiff alleged that she tripped on a curb and fell while
entering a store and suffered “permanent physical and mental
injuries,” “incurred substantial medical expenses, suffered lost
wages, and experienced a diminished earning capacity.” Williams, 269
F.3d at 1318, 1320.
There is no indication, however, that the
plaintiff in Williams had to undergo “numerous surgeries” before she
filed her Complaint.

4