Christovich v. Chartis Property Casualty Company

Filing 16

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Remand to State Court Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 01/04/2016 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL M. CHRISTOVICH

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:15CV372-LG-RHW

CHARTIS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
BEFORE THE COURT is the [10] Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff
Michael M. Christovich. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
relevant law, the Court finds that the Motion should be denied because at the time
of removal the requisite jurisdictional amount was unambiguously stated in the
complaint.
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2015, Christovich filed a Complaint in the County Court of
Pearl River County, Mississippi, against Defendant Chartis Property Casualty
Company. Christovich is a Mississippi citizen, and Chartis is a foreign insurer
licensed to do business in Mississippi. In the Complaint, Christovich sought actual
damages “in the amount of $30,250.00” and “punitive damages in the amount of
$169,749.99 . . . .” (Compl. 4, ECF No. 1-2).
The defendant timely removed the state court action to this Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction, i.e., that the parties are citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Christovich then filed this Motion to Remand, acknowledging that while he

originally requested $199,999.99 in damages, he will now be seeking no more than
$74,999.99 in damages, and, thus, the amount in controversy requirement for
diversity jurisdiction is no longer met. Christovich supported his Motion with an
Affidavit stipulating to the lower damages amount.
DISCUSSION
“[O]nce the district court's jurisdiction is established, subsequent events that
reduce the amount in controversy to less than $75,000 generally do not divest the
court of diversity jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts that support removal must be
judged at the time of removal. While post-removal affidavits may be considered in
determining the amount in controversy at the time of removal, such affidavits may
be considered only if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal.
Additionally, 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.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000).
See also Jones v. Compass Bancshares Inc., 339 F. App’x 410, 411 (5th Cir. 2009)
(“It is well established that the amount in controversy is determined at the time of
removal. Moreover, an amendment to the complaint limiting damages for
jurisdictional purposes cannot divest a federal court of jurisdiction.”) (citations,
quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
The plaintiff is master of his complaint. Here, there is no dispute that the
parties are citizens of different states. It is also apparent from the complaint that
2

Christovich specifically requested more than $75,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages. Because this Court must evaluate the jurisdictional facts as they exist at
the time of removal, Christovich’s post-removal affidavit and stipulation are
inconsequential. See, e.g., Jones, 339 F. App’x at 411; see also Gebbia, 233 F.3d at
883-84 (“Because it was facially apparent that Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceeded
$75,000, the district court properly disregarded Plaintiff’s post-removal affidavit
and stipulation for damages less than $75,000, and such affidavit and stipulation
did not divest the district court’s jurisdiction.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [10] Motion to
Remand filed by Plaintiff Michael M. Christovich is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to
L.U.CIV.R. 16(b)(1)(B), the parties will notify the magistrate judge of the order
denying the Motion to Remand and submit an order lifting the stay entered
December 4, 2015.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of January, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3