Rankin v. Shelter Insurance et al

Filing 15

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order to file a binding affidavit limiting his recovery to $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, if he so chooses;FURTHER ORDERED that if the plaintiff does not file a binding affidavit limiting his recovery to less than the jurisdictional minimum, then the parties shall produce evidence to this Court within forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this Order, showing all damages which the plaintiff seeks in this case. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/5/2018 (Colton Webb/Intern, Natchez)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
LEROY RANKIN, JR.

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18cv25-DCB-MTP

SHELTER INSURANCE, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This cause is before the Court sua sponte to address the issue
of subject matter jurisdiction.

It is not facially apparent from

the plaintiff’s Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. (docket entry 1-1).

The

Court therefore orders the plaintiff to show how the amount being
sought does or does not meet the jurisdictional requirements.
The plaintiff, Leroy Rankin, Jr., filed his Complaint in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi, on January 22,
2018.

After

the

plaintiff’s

home

was

destroyed

by

fire

on

September 30, 2016, he alleges that defendants Shelter Mutual
Insurance Company, Helen Burks Agency, LLC, and “any and all
unknown

Shelter

[Mutual]

Insurance

[Company]

representatives,

adjusters, and agents” have failed to pay the plaintiff for damages
to

his

dwelling,

contents

and

loss

of

use,

under

Homeowners

Insurance Policy No. 23-71-10082076-2. (docket entry 1-1).
plaintiff’s

complaint

alleges

breach

of

contract,

The

negligent

misrepresentation, specific performance, unjust enrichment, and

bad faith against both Shelter and Helen Burks Agency, LLC.
plaintiff

seeks

damages,

prejudgment

interest,

post

The

judgment

interest, attorney’s fees and costs, punitive and/or exemplary
damages as may be allowed by law, and seeks further relief as
equity and justice require. (docket entry 1-1).

The defendant,

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, removed this action to this Court
on March 2, 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.
(docket entry 1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have subject
matter jurisdiction over cases where “the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”

“The

burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal
court

rests

on

the

party

seeking

to

invoke

it.”

Gaitor

v.

Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., 287 F.2d 252, 253-54 (5th
Cir. 1961).

“Generally, where the amount in controversy is not

alleged in the complaint, the defendant must demonstrate that the
severity of the damages alleged give[s] rise to a reasonable
probability that the jurisdictional amount has been met.” Haley ex
rel. Davis v. Ford Motor Co., 417 F.Supp.2d 813 (S.D. Miss. 2006)
(citing Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 851 (5th Cir.
1999)).
The defendants have noted that the plaintiff does not dispute
that

the

amount

in

controversy
2

exceeds

the

jurisdictional

threshold. (docket entry 12,13).
apparent

from

the

plaintiff’s

However, it is not facially
Complaint

that

the

amount

in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Furthermore, the Court has not been presented with any summary
judgment type evidence showing that the value of the plaintiff’s
claims supports an exercise of diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332.

The plaintiff has been silent about establishing

what the true amount-in-controversy is in this case.
The Court will therefore allow the plaintiff an opportunity
to file an affidavit with this Court establishing that the amount
in controversy does not exceed $75,000. The plaintiff’s affidavit,
to be effective, must state without qualifiers or equivocation
that he will not seek or accept an amount greater than $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs; and that he will not amend his
complaint to seek damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, for damages of any kind as a result of the
circumstances alleged in the Complaint.
If the plaintiff chooses to file the affidavit, he must sign
the

affidavit,

as

“statements

competent . . . evidence.”

of

counsel

do

not

constitute

See Roberts v. Walthall County General

Hosp., 96 F.Supp.2d 559, 561 (S.D. Miss. 2000).

A stipulation

signed by the plaintiff (and not his counsel) regarding the amount
in controversy would constitute competent evidence and should
resolve any question that might arise as to the binding effect of
3

the stipulation in subsequent proceedings. Cf. Boyd v. Dolgencorp,
Inc., No. 5:12-cv-48, 2012 WL 3779952, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31,
2012) (finding that an affidavit executed by the plaintiff’s
counsel could not bind the plaintiff, “who can circumvent the
affidavit’s intended effect by finding another attorney to amend
the complaint”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff has fourteen (14)
days from the date of entry of this Order to file a binding
affidavit limiting his recovery to $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, if he so chooses;
FURTHER ORDERED that if the plaintiff does not file a binding
affidavit limiting his recovery to less than the jurisdictional
minimum, then the parties shall produce evidence to this Court
within forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this Order,
showing all damages which the plaintiff seeks in this case.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of June, 2018.

_/s/ David Bramlette______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4