Cutrera v. Churchill Downs, Inc. et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 14 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/18/2014. (psk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
BRENDA CUTRERA
PLAINTIFF
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-00072-SA-JMV
CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., and
HARLOW’S CASINO RESORT AND SPA,
d/b/a SW GAMING, LLC
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff=s Stipulation of Damages [13] in which she
Astipulate[s] and agree[s] that [she] will not request, demand or seek damages of more than
$75,000, exclusive of costs and interests, in the above-captioned matter.” Because the Court does
not have jurisdiction over this case, the case is REMANDED.
Factual and Procedural Background
On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff Brenda Cutrera filed an action in the Circuit Court of
Washington County, Mississippi, alleging both common-law negligence and negligence per se
against Defendants Harlow’s Casino Resort and Spa d/b/a SW Gaming, LLC (“Harlow’s Casino”)
and Churchill Downs, Inc. (“Churchill Downs”), owner/operator of Harlow’s Casino. In the
Complaint [2], Plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $74,000.00 for injuries allegedly
sustained when a slot machine exploded, slamming into her knees. Defendants timely filed a
Notice of Removal [1] based on federal diversity jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Remand [7], asserting that federal diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied in this matter
because the amount-in-controversy does not exceed $75,000.00 as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
Remand Standard
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa
Counties Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 665 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1982). The Judiciary Act
of 1789 provides that “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). Original federal diversity jurisdiction exists “where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and
is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
After removal of a case, the plaintiff may move for remand, and “[if] it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
(emphasis added).
Moreover, once a motion to remand has been filed, the removing party bears
the burden to establish that federal jurisdiction exists. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404,
1408 (5th Cir. 1995).
Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has held that “[a]ny ambiguities are
construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed 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)).
A plaintiff’s claim for damages normally remains presumptively correct unless the
removing defendant can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
actually exceeds $75,000. See Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353, 81 S. Ct. 1570,
6 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1961) (holding that the complaint establishes the amount-in-controversy, unless it
2
appears that “the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith”). Therefore, unless
the removing party can meet its burden, a plaintiff may normally avoid federal diversity
jurisdiction by pleading, in good faith, state court damages below the minimum federal
jurisdictional amount. Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
However, in cases where a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount-in-controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the case becomes
removable, unless the plaintiff can then prove that it is legally certain that he will not be able to
recover such an amount. De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412. As such, the Fifth Circuit has established
that plaintiffs “who want to prevent removal must file a binding stipulation or affidavit with their
complaints.” Id. Moreover, this Court has previously held that “when a plaintiff fails to admit or
stipulate that he will not accept more than $ 75,000 in damages, a federal court may deem that
failure to be sufficient proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and that the federal
diversity jurisdictional amount is therefore satisfied. Easley v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 2007 WL
2127281, *2 (N.D. Miss. 2007); Holmes v. Citifinancial Mortgage Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 829 (N.D.
Miss. 2006); Fields v. Household Bank, 280 F. Supp. 2d 530, 532 (N.D. Miss. 2003); Blount v.
Hardcastle, 2006 WL 278567 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 5, 2006).
Analysis and Discussion
It is undisputed that the first prong of federal diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity, is
satisfied, as Plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen and both Defendants are Kentucky citizens for diversity
purposes.
However,
the
parties
dispute
amount-in-controversy, is satisfied.
3
whether
the
second
prong,
minimum
In Plaintiff’s original Complaint, Plaintiff demanded a judgment against Defendants “in
the amount of $74,000.00 that will fully, fairly and justly compensate her for her past, present and
future damages, together with interest and all costs of this action.” She specifically alleged
damages in the amount of $74,000, and also stipulated by separately filed document that she would
neither seek nor accept damages in excess of $75,000, the federal diversity jurisdictional
minimum. While it is true that “the jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged at the
time of the removal, . . . post-removal affidavits may be considered in determining the amount in
controversy at the time of removal . . . if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of
removal.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000); see also De Aguilar, 47
F.3d at 1412 (plaintiffs “who want to prevent removal must file a binding stipulation or affidavit
with their complaints.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has limited the amount of her recovery for
damages to $75,000.
Conclusion
This Court has no jurisdiction in a diversity case where the amount in controversy does not
exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff has limited her ability to collect more
than $75,000 for damages of any kind. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction and the case
must be remanded. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of Washington
County, Mississippi.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of September, 2014.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT 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?