Hopkins et al v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to terminate all motions and closed this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/10/14. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

ROGER HOPKINS

and

*

ADAM HOPKKINS,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*
*

v.

*

CV

114-165

*

EASTMAN OUTDOORS,

INC.,

*

d/b/a CARBON EXPRESS,

*
*

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs'
Remand.

(Doc.

5.)

For the reasons set forth below,

Motion to

this motion

i s GRANTED.
I.

On June

30,

"the

Hopkins")

Inc.

2014,

("Eastman")

alleging

filed

Roger and Adam Hopkins
suit

theories

("Compl."),

Ex.

1.)

injured

an

arrow

"exploded
Plaintiffs'

medical

or

complaint

of

Defendant

products

Plaintiffs

aver

manufactured

shattered

damages

against

("Plaintiffs" or
Eastman

Outdoors,

in Superior Court of Jefferson County,

various

by

BACKGROUND

and

pierced

alleges

amounting

by

to

that

liability.

that

Roger

Eastman

[his]

(Doc.

Hopkins

when

hand."

Roger

$12,266.68 .*

the

(Id.

Hopkins

(Id.

Georgia,

1)

1

was

arrow

H 6.)

suffered

27(b-c).)

1
The damages include medical expenses incurred by Roger Hopkins' father,
Adam Hopkins, prior to Roger's eighteenth birthday, as well as expenses

incurred by Roger after he turned eighteen.

(Compl. ^

25-27.)

Plaintiffs
Hopkins'

additionally

request

general

for

Roger

pain and suffering and "[s]uch other and further relief

as this Court may deem just and proper."
On August 6,

2014,

(Id. K 27(d, f).)

Eastman removed the case to

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

on

damages

August

14,

2014,

Plaintiffs

filed

(Doc.

1.)

this Court
Thereafter,

their motion

to

remand,

alleging that Eastman failed to prove the amount in controversy
by

a

preponderance

of

the

evidence.

In

argues that it met its burden based on (1)
demand

letter

$75,000.00;

(2)

and

refusal

the

nature

to
of

opposition,

Plaintiffs'

stipulate

the

injury;

to

Eastman

pre-suit

damages

and

(3)

below

comparison

cases.

II.

LEGAL

STANDARD

A defendant may only remove an action from state court if
the federal

court would possess original jurisdiction over the

subject matter.
exercise

28 U.S.C.

original

§ 1441(a).

jurisdiction where

the

The district court may
amount

in controversy

exceeds $75,000.00 and the suit is between citizens of different

states.

28

U.S.C.

not

§

1332(a)(1).

dispute

that

they

In

are

the

present

citizens

of

case,

the

parties

do

different

states;

the only question is whether the amount in controversy

has been satisfied.

"On a motion to remand,

the removing party bears the burden

of establishing jurisdiction."
1505

(11th

Cir.

[jurisdictionally]

1996).

Diaz v. Sheppard,

"[R]emoval

from

85 F.3d 1502,

state

proper if it is facially apparent

court

is

from

the

complaint

that

jurisdictional
Inc.,

the

in

requirement."

608 F.3d 744,

plaintiff

amount

has

754

not

Pretka

(11th Cir.

pled

controversy

a

v.

Kolter

2010).

specific

exceeds
City

"Where,

amount

of

the

Plaza

as

II,

here,

the

damages,

the

removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that

the

amount

requirement."
1184,

1187

in

controversy

exceeds

the

Id. ; see also Lowery v. Ala.

(11th Cir.

2007) .

jurisdictional

Power Co. , 483 F.3d

In assessing whether the defendant

has met its burden,

"the court may consider facts alleged in the

notice of

removal,

judicial admissions made by the plaintiffs,

non-sworn

letters

submitted

judgment

type

evidence

to

that

the

may

court,

reveal

controversy requirement is satisfied."
This

evidence

may

be

reasonable inferences,

"combined

or

that

Pretka,

with

other

the

summary

amount

in

608 F.3d at 754.

reasonable

deductions,

or other reasonable extrapolations."

Id.

" [N]either the defendants nor the court may speculate," however,

and

"the

existence

of

looking to the stars."

jurisdiction
Lowery,

should

not

483 F.3d at 1215.

be

divined

by

Consequently,

all doubts about the propriety of removal should be resolved in
favor of

remand.

2014 WL 4357480,

King v.

at *3

Gov' t

Emps.

Ins.

Co. , No.

(11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014)

13-14794,

(citing Miedema

v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2006)).
III.

DISCUSSION

Eastman attempts to prove that the amount in controversy is

met based upon:

amount

in

(1)

the Hopkins'

controversy

does

not

refusal to stipulate that the

exceed

$75,000.00

and

their

initial

demand

letter

of

$72,000.00;

(2)

the

nature

of

the

injury; and (3) comparison cases.

As a preliminary matter, a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate
that the total value of his damages is less than $75,000.00,
itself,
v.

is inadequate to prove the amount in controversy.

Wal-Mart

at *1

Stores,

(M.D.

Ga.

in Williams v.

plaintiff
standing

Mar.

17,

LP,

alone

so

does

No.

2011) .

Best Buy Co.,

would not

proof on the
Cir.

East,

7:ll-cv-021,

WL

Cross
976414,

As the Eleventh Circuit stated

"[t]here are several reasons why a

stipulate,

not

2011

by

and a

satisfy

[the

jurisdictional issue."

refusal

to

stipulate

defendant's]

burden

269 F.3d 1316,

1320

of

(11th

2001).

Eastman

Hopkins

also

requesting

presents

a

pre-suit

$72,000.00

in

demand

damages.

letter

(Doc.

from

the

Ex.

2.)

10,

The special damages described in the letter total $12,266.68 for
medical expenses.

(Id.)

The remainder of the damages requested

in the pre-suit demand is left unspecified.

(Id.)

understands

demand

not

Eastman's

explain

whether

the

continued

argument,

calculation
medical

because

of

the

damages

treatment

and

will

damages received could easily exceed $72,000.
A

the

settlement offer,

amount

in

by itself,

1092,

1097

settlement

(11th Cir.
demand

if

it

is

properly

be

detail

necessary,

the

(Doc. 10 at 2-3.)

has

been

satisfied,

Burns v. Windsor Ins.

1994) .

letter does

does not determine whether

controversy requirement

"it counts for something."

As the Court

Co.,

but

31 F.3d

More weight should be given to a
an

"honest

assessment

of

damages."

Jackson v.

Am.

Gen.

Fin.

WL 839092, at *2 n.2
Dodge-Markham
1998)).

Co. ,

As

(Doc.

10

that

at

Inc.,

the

1

F.

$72,000.00

However,

points

1365

out,

(M.D.
is

"no
than

in

will

there

Fla.

calculated other

was

Court

(quoting Golden v.

1360,

$12,266.68

the

7:06-cv-19 (HL) , 2006

2006)

2d

demand

were

No.

27,

Supp.

correctly

there

2.)

Inc.,

(M.D. Ga. Mar.

Eastman

indication how

indicating

Servs.,

medical

not

—

damages."

without more —

presume that the damages would exceed that in the demand letter
simply because the demand did not specify the bases for damages
or detail any future medical treatment.

More

importantly,

"impermissible

Eastman

speculation"

as

awarded as general damages.
Inc. , No.

In Arrington,

burden

showing

by

stipulation

Id.

to

this
the

Court

See Arrington v.

of

that

damages,

expenses,

and

Additionally,

at

to

engage

in

that

amount

7:13-cv-154(HL) , 2014 WL 657398,

20, 2014) .

medical

asks

could

be

Wal-Mart Stores,
*2

(M.D.

Ga.

Feb.

the defendant attempted to satisfy its

the

plaintiff

incurred

claimed

refused

approximately

severe

and

to

sign

$44,000

permanent

a

in

injuries.

the defendant in Arrington pointed to a jury

award of $225,000 reached in a different case that occurred more
than

a

decade

individual

earlier.

suffered

Id.

injuries

In

that

resulting

earlier

from

a

car

case,

the

collision,

while the Arrington plaintiff alleged injuries from a slip and
fall.

oranges

[were]

Id.

The court held that it would not "make an apples to

comparison"

completely

because

different,

the

and

"factual

there

situations

[was]

not

presented

sufficient

information

in

Plaintiff's

the injuries."

As
case

points

others

to

damages

the

Court

Eastman's attempt

to

exceed

to compare

high

with

three

analogize

for

compare

Id.

in Arrington,

to

pleadings

falls

prior

jury

cases

$75,000.

Roger

awards

to

Put

Hopkins'

support

simply,

injury

the present

short.

its

conclusion

Eastman's

to

that

Eastman

of

that

attempts

other

to

injured

plaintiffs "who received damages greater than $75,000 is nothing
more

than

none

of

gross

which

speculation,

the

Motors Co. , No.

Court

guesswork

can

and

indulge."

12-0169-WS-N,

wishful

Lambeth

2012 WL 1712692,

thinking,

v.

Peterbilt

at *5

(S.D.

Ala.

May 15, 2012).

First,

broke

Eastman points to a case where the plaintiff's hand

through

"severe

lacerations

lacerations

surgeries,

loss
(Doc.

of
1,

glass

to

the

window panels

of

to

hand

ulnar

occupational

strength,
Ex.

his

right
nerve

therapy,

and

as

coordination,

B.)

door
and

five

well

and

In that case,

a

and

resulted

wrist,

including

tendons,"

as

in

multiple

95

to

98

percent

sensation

in

that

hand.

the jury awarded $183,155

for

medical expenses and $700,000 for past, present, and future pain
and

suffering.

principled
between"

that

basis

for

Roger Hopkins

plaintiff

coordination,

WL

(Id.)

1712692,

lost

However,

drawing
and

95

an

"[t]here

98

*5.

Here,

reasonable,

comparison

described herein,

percent

of

and sensation in his dominant hand.

at

no

apples-to-apples

the plaintiff

to

is

Plaintiff alleges

the

strength,

Lambeth,

that he

as

"has

2012

some

weakness

the

in his

thumb

left

and

hand and

pointer

some numbness

finger."

(Doc.

in

5,

the

area

Ex.

between

1.)

These

allegations are hardly sufficient to draw a reasoned comparison
to a plaintiff who lost nearly 100 percent usage of his dominant
hand.

Next,

boat

Eastman cites a

crash

where

the

plaintiff's

gunwales of the boats,

her

finger

to

Florida settlement arising out of

break

hand

was

crushed between

a

the

the pressure of which caused the bone of

through

her

skin.

(Id. , Ex.

C.)

The

Florida plaintiff claimed that the accident impacted her ability
to get

a

job,

as

she was

a physical

therapist.

medical costs were approximately $6,000,

$92,500.

(Id.)

its facts.
for

lost

portion

Again,

this

settlement

of

and

the

the

Court

settlement

will

was

The

and the settlement was

is distinguishable on

Roger Hopkins makes no claim

Unlike that plaintiff,
wages

(Id.)

not

speculate

attributable

to

as

the

to

what

Florida

plaintiff's inability to work.

Finally,

Eastman

points

different arrow manufacturer.

to

a

(Doc.

jury
10,

Ex.

verdict
C.)

against

a

Eastman claims

that the injury in that case also involved an arrow shattering

upon release and entering an individual's hand.

(Id.)

There,

the plaintiff was awarded close to $40,000 in medical expenses,
$246,283.58

in

economic

damages.

(Id.)

damages,

Critically,

and

$750,000

Eastman

does

in

not

non-economic

detail

the

specifics of the injury itself, aside from asserting a similar
cause.

Eastman

does

not

provide

the

Court

with

information

about

the

plaintiff,

such as

impact of the injury.
to

draw

a

reasoned

his

age,

Without more,
comparison

working

status,

or the

the Court is again unable

between

Roger

Hopkins

and

the

comparator plaintiff.
IV.

CONCLUSION

The only evidence Eastman puts forth to show the amount in
controversy has been met

is $12,266.68 in medical

pre-suit demand letter that lacks
honest

to

assessment

damages;

damages;

cases

sufficient detail to be an

Plaintiff's

stipulate

For the

this

evidence

with

to

received more than the minimum amount in controversy.

above,

plaintiffs

refusal

injuries

described

where

a

hand

reasons

and

of

expenses;

is

insufficient

to

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy is met in this case.

Accordingly,
GRANTED.

Court

of

Plaintiffs'

motion

to

remand

(Doc.

5)

is

The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this case to the State

Jefferson

County,

Georgia.

The

Clerk

is

further

directed to TERMINATE all motions and CLOSE this case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
October,

Georgia,

this

/O*** day of

2014.

HONOKABfcE~\T.

RANDAL HALL

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA