Parker et al v. Walker et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 57 Motion to Remand to State Court. Within 10 days the parties are instructed to contact the Chambers of the Magistrate Judge for the entry of a new Case Management Order. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 12/4/2018. (CL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
FRANCIS PARKER, et al.,
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-892-CWR-FKB

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ second motion to remand, filed two years after this case
was first removed to this Court. Plaintiffs’ basis for this second motion is a recent stipulation
establishing that the amount in controversy no longer satisfies the threshold amount for diversity
jurisdiction. See Docket No. 54.
It is well-established that the initial amount pled determines whether the amount in
controversy requirement has been satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) (if removal is based on
diversity “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the
amount in controversy”). In June of 2017, this Court found that the amount in controversy in the
initial pleadings exceeded the necessary amount for this case to proceed under diversity
jurisdiction. See Docket No. 24. “Events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which
reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.” St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289–90 (1938); see also Gebbia v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 233 F. 3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, the parties’ stipulation does not divest this
Court of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand [Docket No. 57] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of December, 2018.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE