Patel v. BMW Financial Services NA et al

Filing 18

ORDER directing Plaintiff to respond to the following inquiry clarifying the maximum extent of damages that he intended to pursue at the time this case was removed and, if the amount does not exceed $75,000, whether Plain tiff concedes that he does not intend to seek more at a later time. If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue damages adequate to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold at the time of filing and if he stipulates to such limitation having a binding effect, and if there is no federal question at issue, the undersigned will recommend to the presiding District Judge that this matter be remanded to state court. Plaintiff is directed to file his responses to these interrogatories by February 6, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 1/17/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anjay Patel,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BMW Financial Services NA; and
BMW Bank of North America,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 7:16-3270-JMC-SVH

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ON
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

This matter was removed to this court based, in part, on the assertion of diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction under this section exists when the
parties have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. The amount in controversy requirement is
tested at the time of removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
has not set forth a rule concerning the burden of proof on the removing party in regard to
establishing the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Rota v. Consolidation Coal Co., 1999
WL 183873, at *5 (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 1999) (expressly declining to adopt a particular
standard of proof for determining the amount in controversy). When plaintiff has alleged
an indeterminate amount of damages, courts may consider plaintiff’s claims, as alleged in
the complaint, and other relevant materials in the record. Meadows v. Nationwide Mut.
Ins. Co., 1:14-CV-04531-JMC, 2015 WL 3490062, at *2 (D.S.C. June 3, 2015). Courts
include claims for punitive and consequential damages as well as attorney fees and costs
in assessing whether the amount in controversy is satisfied to establish diversity

jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on damages after removal do not affect jurisdiction; however,
clarifications of the amount sought at the time of removal may result in remand. See St.
Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938) (post-removal
amendment does not affect jurisdiction); Cole v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 728 F.
Supp. 1305 (E.D. Ky. 1990) (ambiguous demands may be subject to post-removal
clarification).
In the present case, the amount sought is unclear. Plaintiff is, therefore, directed to
respond to the following inquiry clarifying the maximum extent of damages that he
intended to pursue at the time this case was removed and, if the amount does not exceed
$75,000, whether Plaintiff concedes that he does not intend to seek more at a later time.
If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue damages adequate to satisfy the jurisdictional
threshold at the time of filing and if he stipulates to such limitation having a binding
effect, and if there is no federal question at issue, the undersigned will recommend to the
presiding District Judge that this matter be remanded to state court.
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF:
1.

At the time this matter was initially filed in state court, was it
Plaintiff’s intent to pursue monetary damages in excess of $75,000?

2.

Is Plaintiff willing to stipulate that this statement limits the damages
exclusive of interests and costs, which she will pursue in this action?

Plaintiff is directed to file his responses to these interrogatories by February 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 17, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
2