Demian v. Doe et al

Filing 8

The Court ORDERS Defendants to provide sufficient evidence within fourteen days of the date of this Order that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 1/3/25. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
GHADA DEMIAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN DOE and
)
EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 124-242

ORDER
_________
Following a trucking accident on July 5, 2023, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable
for his injuries, including past and future medical expenses and punitive damages, as well as
emotional distress, personal inconvenience, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, and inability to lead a normal life because of the violence of the collision
and injuries to Plaintiff’s body and nervous system. (See Compl., doc. no. 1-3; see also Notice
of Removal, doc. no. 1, p. 3.) Plaintiffs filed this action in the State Court of Richmond
County, and Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on December 20, 2024, asserting diversity
of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. (Doc. no. 1, p. 2.) There
is no specific amount of damages claimed in the complaint beyond $35,768.57 in past medical
expenses. (Doc. no. 1-3, p. 4.)
“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.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th

Cir. 2001). If the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, “the court should look
to the notice of removal and may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the
time the case was removed.” Id. Further, the burden of proving the jurisdictional amount lies
with the removing defendant. Id.
The stated basis for satisfaction of the amount in controversy is the conclusory
statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on Plaintiff’s claimed medical
expenses itemized in the amount of $35,768.57, combined with a non-specific amount of other
types of damages. (Doc. no. 1, p. 3.) Thus, it is not facially apparent from the complaint that
Plaintiffs’ claims exceed the amount in controversy requirement.
“[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). Although a defendant must not “banish all uncertainty about” the amount in
controversy, at a minimum, there must be specific factual allegations provided that, when
“combined with reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, and other reasonable
extrapolations,” allow the Court to conclude that the amount in controversy is satisfied, and
the Court’s analysis “focuses on how much is in controversy at the time of removal, not later.”
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza, II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS Defendants to provide sufficient evidence within fourteen days of the date of
this Order that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

2