Crocker v. Brown
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying Pltf's 8 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/5/16. (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00005-MR-DLH
RENEE CROCKER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANDRA L. BROWN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
[Doc 8].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff initiated this action on December 9, 2015, in the District
Court of Transylvania County, North Carolina, alleging defamation (counts
one and two) and “wrongful interference with Plaintiff’s employment and/or
contractual relationship” (count three). [Doc. 1-1]. The Plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages including compensatory damages “in excess of
$10,000.00” and punitive damages. [Id. at 4]. On January 7, 2016, the
Defendant removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.1
[Doc. 1]. The Defendant timely answered Plaintiff’s Complaint on January
28, 2016.2 [Doc. 7]. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Remand asserting that there is no diversity because both parties are citizens
of North Carolina, and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
[Doc. 8]. The Defendant responded on February 23, 2016. [Doc. 12].
Having been fully briefed by the parties, this matter is now ripe for
disposition.
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions
between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy
exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $75,000, and there exists complete
diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For
complete diversity to exist, “the citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] diverse
from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S.
1
The Defendant alleges in her Notice of Removal that the Plaintiff is a citizen of North
Carolina, the Defendant is a citizen of South Carolina, and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. [Doc. 1 at 2].
Defendant’s Answer was filed within the time allowed by this Court’s Order granting the
Defendant an Extension of Time to Answer. [Doc. 6].
2
2
61, 68 (1996) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 187
(1990)). The party seeking removal based upon diversity jurisdiction has the
burden of establishing jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the
evidence. Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir. 2013).
A.
Diversity
The Plaintiff first argues that there is no diversity because both parties
are citizens of North Carolina. [Doc. 8 at 1]. “[C]itizenship for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction depends not on residence, but on national citizenship
and domicile.” Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co., 145 F.3d 660,
663 (4th Cir. 1998). “Domicile requires physical presence, coupled with an
intent to make the State a home.” Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932,
937 n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). Determining this intent involves examining the
totality of the circumstances, including current residence, location of real and
personal property, location of bank accounts, place of employment or
business, payment of taxes, and voter registration. 13E Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3612 (3d
ed. 2016).
In support of her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant: (1) owns real and personal property in North Carolina, (2) was
personally served in North Carolina, and (3) actually resides in North
3
Carolina. The Defendant, being the party who removed this matter, is the
party asserting jurisdiction in this Court. Therefore, the burden of proof is on
the Defendant to show diversity and to refute Plaintiff’s claim that diversity
does not exist. In doing so, Defendant concedes that she owns real property
in North Carolina as claimed by the Plaintiff. She explains, however, that
one property is a former marital residence occupied by her ex-husband, that
she has not occupied since their divorce in 2009. [Doc. 13 “Affidavit of
Sandra L. Brown” at ¶ 17]. The Defendant has also presented evidence that
she holds an interest in the other property as a result of her co-signing a loan
with her daughter so that her daughter could purchase it as a home. [Id. at
¶¶ 12, 17].
The Defendant admits that she has resided in North Carolina with her
daughter for periods of time in 2015, but further states that her stays were
only temporary while she assisted her daughter and her daughter’s family
with an ongoing legal matter. [Id. at ¶¶ 13-16]. Defendant admits to owning
a vehicle that is registered in North Carolina, but states that she was
unsuccessful in her attempt to register her vehicle in South Carolina because
the transfer requires documentation that is in her ex-husband’s exclusive
possession and control. [Id. at ¶ 20]. Finally, the Defendant admits to being
personally served with process in North Carolina. She states, however, that
4
she voluntarily agreed to accept service in North Carolina after being
contacted by the Sheriff’s Office of Transylvania County. [Id. at ¶ 18].
The Defendant further shows this Court by sworn affidavit that she:
owns real property in South Carolina that she purchased in 2011 “with the
intention of residing there immediately and permanently” [Id. at ¶¶ 5-6]; owns
and operates her business, a South Carolina limited liability company, from
her residence in South Carolina [Id. at ¶ 8]; is listed as the company’s
registered agent for service at her South Carolina address [Id. at ¶ 8]; and
receives account statements at her South Carolina residence for utilities,
condominium dues, property taxes, bank accounts, and several credit cards
[Id. at ¶ 9].
The Defendant does not dispute that recently she has resided some of
the time in North Carolina and some of the time in South Carolina. [Id. at ¶¶
13-16] (she resided with her daughter in North Carolina “[d]uring 2015 . . .
[for] periods of time.”). Based thereon, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has
failed to prove that she resided in South Carolina as of the specific date on
which the lawsuit was commenced, December 9, 2015.
See generally
Rowland v. Patterson, 852 F.2d 108, 110 (4th Cir. 1988) (“It is well settled
that diversity is judged as of the time of commencement of suit.”).
Residence, however, is not dispositive. Domicile is the issue. As stated
5
supra, domicile is not dependent upon presence alone, but on the intent to
make a place one’s home. Johnson, 549 F.3d at 937.
Having considered the evidence presented, this Court finds that the
Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she is
domiciled in South Carolina and thus is a citizen of South Carolina. It is
undisputed that the Plaintiff is a citizen of North Carolina. Therefore, the
Court concludes that there is complete diversity between the parties. See
Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 68.
B.
Amount in Controversy
The Plaintiff also argues that the amount in controversy for her
defamation and wrongful interference claims does not exceed $75,000.
[Doc. 8 at 1]. In cases where subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on
diversity and the complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages,
the party asserting jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446.
Here, the Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s defamation and wrongful
interference claims exceeds $75,000. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant’s actions have, among other things, resulted in her being
6
discharged from her employment with Transylvania County DSS. [Doc. 1-1
at 3].
The Plaintiff further alleges that her “employment would have
continued indefinitely, except for the interference of the Defendant.” [Id.].
The Defendant has presented evidence to this Court obtained from
Plaintiff’s former employer pursuant to discovery requests that tends to show
that the Plaintiff was earning $54,943.98 per year at the time she was
terminated. [Docs. 13 at ¶¶ 21, 23; 13-14 at 1]. The Defendant further shows
that if the Plaintiff prevails and the jury awards even two years of lost income
for a discharge from employment that Plaintiff alleges “would have continued
indefinitely,” the Plaintiff would be entitled to over $100,000 in damages, an
amount in controversy well above the jurisdictional threshold. Combining the
potential award for Plaintiff’s lost wages claim along with Plaintiff’s demand
for punitive damages and damages for embarrassment, humiliation, and
damage to her reputation, this Court concludes that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is hereby denied.
7
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
[Doc. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 5, 2016
8
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?