Davidson v. Buck's, Inc.

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND. (See Full Order.) For the foregoing reasons, defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 12/7/2016. (Order sent to City of St. Louis Circuit Court with docket sheet this date.)(CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JIMMY DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BUCK’S INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16 CV 1636 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
Plaintiff Jimmy Davidson alleges he was injured when an employee of
defendant Buck’s Inc., while acting within the scope of his employment, caused his
vehicle to collide with a vehicle in which Davidson was a passenger. Davidson
filed his complaint in Missouri state court in St. Louis City, and it was
subsequently removed to this court by Buck’s, who asserts that this court has
diversity jurisdiction over Davidson’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Davidson
has now filed a motion to remand this case to state court. He claims there is no
federal diversity jurisdiction because Buck’s has failed to prove the requisite
amount in controversy. Based on the face of Davidson’s complaint and the lack of
evidence otherwise, I find that the amount in controversy does not meet or exceed
$75,000, and I am therefore granting the motion to remand.

A defendant normally may remove an action from state court to federal court
if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction where the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Federal courts are to strictly construe the amount in controversy requirement, as
the purpose underlying it is to limit the federal courts’ diversity caseload. Snyder
v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 339-340 (1969). All doubts about federal jurisdiction
should be resolved in favor of remand to state court. Hubbard v. Federated Mut.
Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015). To meet its burden with regard to
the jurisdictional amount, the removing party in a case based upon diversity of
citizenship must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. James Neff Kramper Family Farm P'ship v. IBP,
Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2005). Specific facts or evidence are required to
demonstrate that the jurisdictional amount is met. Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 324 F.
Supp. 2d 1028, 1036 (E.D. Mo. 2004). .
In his complaint, Davidson avers that as a result of the vehicle accident, he
“sustained injuries to his back and neck” resulting in past and future medical
expenses. He claims that as a result of his injuries, his activities have been limited,
he has lost enjoyment of life, and he has suffered and will continue to suffer
physical pain and mental anguish. He claims his injuries are painful and
-2-

progressive. Davidson’s prayer for relief asks for damages greater than $25,000
but less than $75,000.1
As evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, defendant has
cited to several jury verdicts from Missouri state court in St. Louis City, in which
damages awarded were greater than $75,000. Defendant claims these cases are all
comparable to the case here in that they involved vehicle accidents resulting in
injuries similar to Davidson’s. Defendant notes that an amount in controversy
analysis does not require proof that the damages are actually greater than the
requisite amount, but proof that a fact finder could legally conclude that they are.
See James Neff Kramper Family Farm P'ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 833 (8th
Cir. 2005).
After careful consideration, I conclude that defendant has failed to carry its
burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy is met. Although evidence
of state jury verdicts in similar cases is permitted for purposes of opposing a
motion to remand, see Quinn v. Kimble, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1040 (E.D. Mo.
2002), here such verdicts are not useful because there is insufficient evidence as to
the nature and extent of Davidson’s injuries. Without a clearer understanding of
Davidson’s harm, it is impossible to analogize his claims to those of other

1

A demand of less than $75,000.00 in plaintiff’s complaint is not determinative of the amount in
controversy. Rodgers v. Wolfe, No. 4:05CV01600ERW, 2006 WL 335716, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Feb.
14, 2006).

-3-

plaintiffs. Although in many of the cases cited by defendant the plaintiffs suffered
injuries to their necks and backs, there is a vast range of injuries a person could
suffer to these parts of the body. Without more evidence, an assertion of similarity
between this case and those cases is not persuasive.
Additionally, defendant cited other cases to support its assertion that
Missouri federal courts have concluded that the amount in controversy requirement
is met where a plaintiff alleges “serious” injuries. However, these cases are
distinguishable from the instant matter because they either include evidence of
settlement demands in excess of $75,000 or include significantly more evidence
regarding the plaintiff’s injury. See, e.g., Carville v. Sheraton Corp., 2009 Wl
1393872 (E.D. Mo. May 15, 2009); Hall v. Vlahoulis, No. 06-6107-CV-SJ-FJG,
2007 WL 433266, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2007); Ward v. Sailormen, Inc., No.
4:06CV 1814 JCH, 2007 WL 1040934, at *1 (E.D. Mo. April 3, 2007); Quinn, 228
F. Supp. 2d at 1041.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant has failed to meet its burden of
establishing by a preponderance of evidence an amount in controversy that exceeds
$75,000.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand [13] is
granted, and this case is remanded to the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, City of St.
-4-

Louis, Missouri, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of December, 2016.

-5-