Burress v. Belk Stores of Mississippi, LLC
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 12 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 8/11/14. (rel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
LINDA BURRESS
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.1: 13-cv-00230-GHD-SAA
BELK STORES OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
Presently before this Court is Plaintiff Linda Burress's motion to remand the case to state
court [7]. Upon due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion for remand [7]
should be denied.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Burress ("Plaintiff') filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, against Defendant Belk Stores of Mississippi, LLC
("Defendant") to recover for injuries she sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall incident in the
Belk store in Tupelo, Mississippi. Plaintiff alleges that after completing her shopping and while
waiting for the checkout line to thin, she approached clothing racks to view the items for sale,
and that subsequently, the negligently maintained racks collapsed and fell upon Plaintiff without
warning, causing her to sustain injuries. In her state-court complaint, she seeks compensatory
damages in the amount of $300,000.
On December 2,2013, Defendant filed a notice of removal [1]. On December 24,2013,
Plaintiff filed the present motion to remand [17] the case to state court. Defendant then filed a
response. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the time for filing a reply is now past. The motion to
remand [7] is thus ripe for review.
1
B. Standard ofReview
The removal statute provides in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by
the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). Thus, according to the removal statute, "[a] defendant can remove to
federal court any civil action brought in state court over which the district court would also have
had original jurisdiction." Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a». A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a state
claim when the amount in controversy is met and there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Any ambiguities are construed against removal
and in favor of remand. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th
Cir. 2002) (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000». The party
who seeks to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of showing that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper. Id. (citations omitted).
C. Discussion
As stated, federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs
and all defendants and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Although Plaintiff apparently concedes that complete diversity of citizenship exists
between Plaintiff and Defendant, she contends that remand is warranted because the
jurisdictional amount in controversy is not satisfied.
Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that
although her state-court complaint includes a prayer for relief in the amount of $300,000, this
2
amount was inadvertently stated. Plaintiff maintains that she actually does not seek damages in
excess of $70,000, and she attaches to her motion for remand an affidavit to that effect. Plaintiff
thus maintains that removal is improper and remand is warranted.
Defendant argues that the law is well established that the amount in controversy for
diversity jurisdiction is measured when the state-court complaint is filed and when the notice of
removal is filed. Defendant further argues that because on both applicable dates Plaintiff sought
damages in the amount of $300,000, the jurisdictional amount in controversy is established.
Defendant thus maintains that removal is proper and remand is not warranted.
A district court enjoys diversity jurisdiction over "civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs[.]" 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). As Defendant correctly states, the amount in controversy is determined at the time of
removal. See Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). Courts
generally begin the amount-in-controversy analysis by "look[ing] only to the face of the
complaint and ask[ing] whether the amount in controversy exceeds" the jurisdictional threshold.
Ervin v. Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP, 364 F. App'x 114, 117 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting S.W.S.
Erectors, Inc. v. In/ax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 492 (5th Cir. 1996». In the case sub judice, the
complaint's ad damnum clause provides that Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $300,000.
Thus, the face of the complaint indicates that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold.
Courts may consider post-removal affidavits in determining the amount in controversy at
the time of removal if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal. Gebbia, 233
F.3d at 883 (citing Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala 0. Artesanales de
Colombia (ANPAC) v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A., 988 F.2d 559, 565 (5th Cir. 1993».
3
However, as in the case sub judice, "if it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and
amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction." See id.
(internal citations omitted). This Court's diversity jurisdiction was established at the time of
removal, because complete diversity of citizenship was present between Plaintiff, a Mississippi
citizen, and Defendant, a North Carolina citizen, and the jurisdictional amount in controversy
was satisfied by the state-court complaint's ad damnum request of $300,000 in damages.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs subsequent affidavit reducing the amount requested to below $70,000
does not deprive this Court of diversity jurisdiction. Removal is proper, and remand is not
warranted.
D. Conclusion
In sum, Plaintiffs motion to remand to state court [7] is DENIED.
An order in acSOfdance with this opinion shall issue this day,
~
THIS, the
day of August, 2014.
I
L
SENIOR JUDGE
4
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?