Evans-Mitchell et al v. Healy et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' motion to remand [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED with respect to the request for remand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to r emand is DENIED with respect to the request for an award of court costs, expenses and attorney's fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen on March 3, 2017. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROCHELLE EVANS-MITCHELL, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRETT HEALY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case no. 4:17cv00276 PLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion to remand [ECF No. 13] filed by Plaintiffs
Rochelle Evans-Mitchell and Laudell Gatlin-Bey. By their motion, Plaintiffs request the Court
to remand the case to the state court from which it was removed, the 22nd Judicial Circuit.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court “to award Plaintiffs court costs, expenses and attorney’s fees
incurred in bringing this motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 1447(c).” In response, Defendants
Brett Healy and Walt’s Drive-A-Way Service, Inc. consent to remand and state “Plaintiffs have
agreed, in writing, to withdraw and waive their request for costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447.”
[ECF No. 15.]
Background
This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision in the City of St. Louis during which
Defendant Healy, an employee of Defendant Drive-A-Way, drove a vehicle into the lane
Plaintiffs were in, allegedly striking Plaintiffs’ vehicle and causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and
property damage. (See Pls.’ Pet’n [ECF No. 7].) Plaintiffs seek damages in Count I based on
Defendant Healy’s alleged negligence and in Count II based on Defendant Drive-A-Way’s
alleged negligence. (Pls.’ Pet’n at 3-4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs request monetary relief from
both Defendants in Count III on the ground the accident occurred while Defendant Healy acted
in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Drive-A-Way. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiffs filed their petition in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Plaintiffs alleged they are citizens of Missouri and Defendants are citizens of Indiana. (Pet’n ¶¶
2, 3.) With regard to their damages, Plaintiffs alleged each “suffered injuries to [the] neck, back
and mental trauma[,] . . . property damage, past and future medical expenses, mental anguish,
lost opportunities, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.” (Pls.’ Pet’n ¶¶ 13, 14, 15,
21.) Plaintiffs prayed for:
judgment against [each Defendant] for a reasonable sum of money in excess of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) that will fairly and reasonably
compensate Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages; for their costs herein
expended and incurred; for prejudgment interest; and for such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
(Pls.’ Pet’n “Wherefore” Para. at 5.)
Defendants removed the lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Defs.’ Notice of Removal ¶ 8 [ECF No. 1].)
Defendants asserted the lawsuit “was between citizens of different states and the [amount] in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.” Id. In support of
removal, Defendants stated Plaintiffs were citizens of Missouri and Defendants were citizens of
Indiana, and Defendants had “a good faith belief . . . that the amount of damages sought by at
least one Plaintiff individually exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest.” (Defs.’
Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6, 7.)
Plaintiffs move to remand on the grounds that their petition does not specify, and
Defendants have not proved, that the case involves an amount of damages exceeding the morethan-$75,000.00 minimum required for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. (Pls.’ Mot.
2
Remand [ECF No. 13] and Mem. Supp. [ECF No. 14].) In support of their argument that they
seek less than the $75,000.00 minimum, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit averring that Plaintiffs and
their attorney “will not seek more than $75,00.00 in damages, including attorney’s fees, in this
matter,” “will not accept any money awarded in excess of $75,000.00 and will therefore waive
any amount awarded over and above $75,000.00.” (Aff. attached to Pls.’ Mot. Remand [ECF
No. 13-1].)
Plaintiffs urge the Court to consider Plaintiffs’ affidavit because it clarifies the
amount in controversy, citing Jackson v. Fitness Resource Group, Inc., No. 4:12CV0986 DDN,
2012 WL 2873668 (E.D. Mo. July 12, 2012). In addition to remand, Plaintiffs seek an award of
“court costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred” in pursuing their motion to remand. See 28
U.S.C. 1447(c).
Defendants consent to the remand due to Plaintiffs’ filing of “their notarized stipulation
limiting damages to less than the applicable amount in controversy.” (Defs.’ Notice of Consent
to Pls.’ Mot. Remand ¶¶ 3, 4 [ECF No. 15].) Additionally, Defendants state “Plaintiffs have
agreed, in writing, to withdraw and waive their request for costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447.”
(Id. ¶ 5.)
Discussion
A defendant may remove to federal court any state court civil action over which the
federal court could exercise original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has
original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states when the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
A federal court’s jurisdiction is measured at the time of filing, or, for a removed case, at the time
of removal. See Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817, 822-23 (8th Cir. 2011).
3
A defendant’s removal notice “need not contain evidentiary submissions.”
Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 551 (2014). In the Eighth
Circuit, however, a party seeking to remove a case not involving the Class Action Fairness Act
“has the burden to prove the requisite amount [for diversity jurisdiction] by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Advance Am. Servicing of Ark., Inc. v. McGinnis, 526 F.3d 1170, 1173 (8th
Cir. 2008)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B).
While post-removal events “do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has
attached,” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab. Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938), the court
may consider subsequent events showing “that, in fact, the required amount was or was not in
controversy at the” time federal court jurisdiction was invoked, Schubert, 649 F.3d at 823
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Powell, 87 F.3d 93,
97 (3rd Cir. 1996)). Post-removal affidavits may, therefore, be considered to resolve whether the
district court has jurisdiction. Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, 829 F.3d 963 (8th Cir.
2016) (per curiam).
In Jackson, the court concluded the petition, in which the plaintiff sought damages “in
excess of $25,000.00,” left “an open question whether or not the amount in controversy was
sufficient for diversity jurisdiction,” and the requisite amount was not satisfied by the nature of
the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Jackson, 2012 WL 2873668, at * 5. After considering
the plaintiff’s post-removal affidavit, in which the plaintiff agreed to limit his recovery to
$75,000.00, and a demand letter the plaintiff had sent the defendant in which the plaintiff had
requested an amount around $78,000.00, the court concluded the issue was “close [but the]
4
defendant ha[d] not satisfied its burden.” Id. The court remanded the lawsuit to the state court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the amount in controversy. Id. at *6.
Here, Plaintiffs’ petition does not clearly specify that Plaintiffs seek more than $75,000 in
damages, either in an allegation supporting each claim or in the “Wherefore” paragraph.
Moreover, the nature of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims resulting from a motor vehicle accident
does not explicitly identify the amount in controversy. Plaintiffs’ unopposed post-removal
affidavit is the only material in the record that clearly demonstrates the amount in controversy.
The affidavit expressly limits Plaintiffs’ recovery, including any attorney’s fees that may be
awarded, to less than $75,000.00.
The affidavit establishes that the amount-in-controversy
requirement for the Court’s diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied at the time of removal.
Under the circumstances, the Court remands the case to the 22nd Judicial Circuit due to
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denies Plaintiffs’ request for court costs, expenses and
attorney’s fees related to the motion to remand.
After careful consideration,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’
motion to remand [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED with respect to the request for remand.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED with
respect to the request for an award of court costs, expenses and attorney’s fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2017.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?