DEAN et al v. FRANK et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 5/29/15. 5/29/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(va, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEAN, et al

CIVIL ACTION
v.

NO. 15-2722
FRANK, et al

ORDER-MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 29th day of May 2015, upon review of Defendants' Notice of Removal

(ECF Doc. No. 1), this Court's May 19, 2015 Order (ECF Doc. No. 2) and

Defendants'

Memorandum in Support of their Notice of Removal (ECF Doc. No. 3), it is ORDERED this
matter is REMANDED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
Clerk of this Court shall REMAND this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County forthwith and mark this action CLOSED.
Analysis

Three Maryland Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County arising from a motor vehicle accident with a Philadelphia citizen. Plaintiffs collectively
claim serious and permanent personal injuries, serious impairment of bodily function and/or
permanent serious disfigurement and/or aggravation of pre-existing conditions and other ills and
injuries. They also collectively claim emotional injuries, "great" loss of earnings or earning
capacity, anguish, sickness, agony, damages to personal property, storage fees and future
medical costs. Each Plaintiff could separately sue Defendants in separate actions but elected to
file one action. In this one action, Plaintiffs collectively claim damages in excess of $50,000.
They do not specify a dollar loss to any single Plaintiff.

Defendants timely removed to this Court with a conclusory allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 (ECF Doc. No. 1).
collective damages do not exceed $150,000. 1

Defendants also represented the Plaintiffs'
In their Memorandum in support of removal

(ECF Doc. No. 3), Defendants argue there are three Plaintiffs with alleged damages and
Defendants "reasonably deduced" Plaintiffs' allegations "could" amount to damages in excess of
$75,000.
In light of Congress' intent to limit federal jurisdiction based on diversity, "[t]he removal
statutes 'are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of
remand."' Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F .2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Steel

Valley Auth. v. Union Switch and Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987)).
As each Plaintiff could bring a separate and distinct claim for liability against the
Defendants (and possibly against each other), the three Plaintiffs cannot aggregate claims to
reach the $75,000 threshold. Huber v. Taylor, 532 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008); Plunkett v.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14-6545, 2014 WL 7271380, *2-*3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22,
2014).

Defendants fail to show any Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of $75,000 by a

preponderance of the evidence. Stevenson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 14-4073, 2015 WL
158811, *3 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 12, 2015).

There is no basis to find any Plaintiff suffered losses in

excess of $75,000.
Even assuming one Plaintiff alleged physical and emotional injuries, medical expenses
and reduced earning capacity and sought damages "in excess of $50,000", he would not meet the
jurisdictional threshold upon removal absent further plausible facts.

See, e.g., Huberman v.

Interval Leisure Group, Inc., No. 15-1560, 2015 WL 2365585 at *2 (E.D.Pa. May 18, 2015)

1

See Designation Form (ECF Doc. No. 1, p.l)
2

(collecting cases and citing Judge v. Phila. Premium Outlets, No. 10-1553, 2010 WL 2376122, at
*5 (E.D.Pa. June 8, 2010)).

At present, all we know is that three plaintiffs claim damages in

excess of $50,000 and the Defendant believes those damages do not exceed $150,000. We are
thus left guessing as to whether any Plaintiff can meet the jurisdictional threshold. See,
Stevenson. As we cannot guess, we find this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

3