Jones v. Enterprise Leasing Company-South Central LLC et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand; finding as moot 10 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 14 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 15 Motion to Strike. This case shall immediately be remanded to the Circuit Court of Covington County, Mississippi. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 4/8/2014 (scp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELVIA JONES
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-32-KS-MTP

ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANYSOUTH CENTRAL LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [4].
This case shall immediately be remanded to the Circuit Court of Covington County,
Mississippi. The Court denies Defendants’ Motions to Strike [10, 14, 15] as moot.
Defendant removed this case [1] on March 7, 2014, claiming the Court has
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand [4] on March 10, 2014. The
only disputed issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold.
This Court has removal jurisdiction of all cases in which it has original
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and it has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Defendants, as the removing parties, have the burden of demonstrating “that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.” Barker v. Hercules Offshore, 706 F.3d
680, 684-85 (5th Cir. 2013). Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction and
removal raises significant federalism concerns, “any doubt as to the propriety of

removal should be resolved in favor of remand.” Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 251
(5th Cir. 2008).
When a plaintiff claims a specific amount of damages in her complaint, the sum
“controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47
F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995). But “if a defendant can show that the amount in
controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the plaintiff must be able to
show that, as a matter of law, it is certain [s]he will not be able to recover more than
the” jurisdictional threshold. Id. at 1411. In addressing the current motion, the Court
will assume that Defendants can show that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold.
Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that, as a matter of law, she will not be
able to recover more than $75,000. She provided an affidavit [17-1]1 in which she swore
that she seeks $74,900 in damages, and that she would not “ask for, seek, . . . accept,”
or “seek to collect” more than that amount. She also waived her right to amend the
pleadings at any time during litigation.
“The jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged at the time of the
removal.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). “[P]ostremoval affidavits may be considered in determining the amount of controversy at the
time of removal . . . only if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of

1

Plaintiff filed a similar affidavit [5, 6] with her Motion to Remand, but
Defendants filed motions to strike it [10, 14, 15]. The supplemental affidavit does
not suffer from the same deficiencies as the previous one, and – for reasons stated
below – the Court may consider it in determining the amount in controversy.
2

removal.” Id. “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.” Id.
Plaintiff demanded $74,900 in her Complaint [1-7] and alleged that she
sustained “serious,” permanent injuries which led to “substantial” medical expenses.
She claims to have experienced “excruciating physical and mental pain” and
“disabilities” caused by Defendants’ negligence, but she did not demand punitive
damages. Prior to removal she demanded $90,000 [1-4] to settle the case, refused to
admit that she was not claiming punitive damages or lost wages [1-5], and claimed
medical bills and lost wages [1-3] in the amount of $10,372.81. In light of these
inconsistencies, the Court concludes that the true amount in controversy was
ambiguous at the time of removal. Further, as Plaintiff did not demand punitive
damages in her Complaint, the Court finds that it is not facially apparent from the
Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. For
these reasons, the Court may consider Plaintiff’s affidavit [17-1]. Id.
As noted above, Plaintiff swore – without equivocation – that she would not seek
or accept more than $74,900 in damages in this matter, and she waived her right to
amend the pleadings. This is sufficient to demonstrate that, “as a matter of law, it is
certain [s]he will not be able to recover more than the” jurisdictional threshold. De
Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1411; see also Handshoe v. Broussard, No. 1:13-CV-251-LG-JMR,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135740, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 23, 2013); Donaldson v. Ovella,
3

No. 1:12-CV-397-LG-JMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36802, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 18,
2013); Givens v. Food Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 4:11-CV-29-SA-DAS, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 120201, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 17, 2011). Of course, any attempt to circumvent
the stipulation would raise serious questions as to whether Plaintiff and her counsel
committed fraud on the Court potentially subject to sanctions. See Hughes v. Safeco
Ins. Co., 3:11-CV-200-CWR-FKB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155691, at *4 (S.D. Miss. June
14, 2011); Doss v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 4:10-CV-17-SA-DAS, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42318,
at *19 n. 5 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 29, 2010); Culpepper v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Inc., 4:08-CV16-SA-DAS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11045, at *12 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2009).
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [4]. This case shall immediately
be remanded to the Circuit Court of Covington County, Mississippi. The Court denies
Defendants’ Motions to Strike [10, 14, 15] as moot.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 8TH day of April, 2014.

s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4