Leaderman v. QuikTrip Corporation
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER remanding this action to the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/10/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ELIZABETH LEADERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-3955-WSD
QUIKTRIP CORPORATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff Elizabeth Leaderman (“Plaintiff”) filed her
Complaint [1.1] in the State Court of Fulton County. The Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff sustained injuries after tripping and falling at a gas station owned by
Defendant QuikTrip Corporation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff incurred medical
expenses “in excess of $7,500.00,” and “incurred significant pain and suffering,
past and present.” (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). Plaintiff asserts a negligence claim against
Defendant and seeks damages “in excess of $15,000.00.” (Compl. ¶ 15).
On October 24, 2016, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal [1], seeking to
remove this action from state court. The Notice of Removal asserts that the Court
has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal ¶ 8).
On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Stipulation to Damages [4], “stipulat[ing]
to limit the total damages sought in this case . . . to an amount at or less than
$75,000.00.” ([4] at 1). Plaintiff states she “will not seek more than $75,000.00 at
trial” and “will not seek to enforce a jury verdict in excess” of that amount. ([4]
at 1).
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh Circuit
consistently has held that “a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well
settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In this case, the Complaint [1.1] raises only
questions of state law and the Court only could have diversity jurisdiction over this
matter.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
The burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction “rests with the defendant seeking
removal.” Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013); City of
Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fidelity Ins. Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012)
2
(“The removing party bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of federal
subject matter jurisdiction.”). “Where a plaintiff’s state court complaint
specifically claims less than the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy, the
defendant must prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff will not recover less than
the jurisdictional amount.” Boyd v. Shelton, No. 1:09-cv-03502, 2010 WL
1817759, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2010). “[W]here a plaintiff has made an
unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing defendant must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely
than not exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.” Id. “In some cases, this
burden requires the removing defendant to provide additional evidence
demonstrating that removal is proper.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d
1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010).
After quoting language from Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Notice of
Removal simply asserts that “the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 5). Defendant does not offer an explanation or provide
additional evidence for this conclusion. In view of the modest allegations in
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Complaint’s limited request for damages “in excess of
$15,000.00,” and Plaintiff’s post-removal stipulation that she “will not seek more
than $75,000.00 at trial,” the Court finds that the jurisdictional amount in
3
controversy has not been established and this action is required to be remanded to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See City of Vestavia
Hills v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[A]ll doubts
about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.”);
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1268 (11th Cir. 2000) (“In light of
the federalism and separation of powers concerns implicated by diversity
jurisdiction, federal courts are obligated to strictly construe the statutory grant of
diversity jurisdiction . . . [and] to scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the
precise limits which the statute has defined.” (citations omitted)); see also
Davison v. Lefever, No. 13-cv-157, 2013 WL 4012654, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 5,
2013) (remanding to state court where “the jurisdictional amount was ambiguous
on the face of complaint” and plaintiffs’ post-removal stipulation of the damages
sought “shed[] some light on [plaintiffs’] thinking at the time they filed their
complaint”).
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is remanded to the State Court
of Fulton County, Georgia.
4
SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2017.
5
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?