Castle v. Doe et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 5 TO REMAND. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 5/6/2016. Copy mailed to Circuit Court Clerk of Berkeley County.(tlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
MARIA CASTLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-18
(GROH)
JOHN DOE and
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF No.
5], filed on March 10, 2016. On March 24, 2016, Defendant Wal-Mart filed its response,
and on April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her reply. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and accordingly REMANDS this proceeding
to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia.
I. Background1
On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of
Berkeley County, West Virginia. The Plaintiff alleges that on September 12, 2015, she
was pushing a cart through one of the aisles in a Wal-Mart located in Martinsburg, West
Virginia. At that time, her four-year-old son was in the cart and she was also eight and
one-half months pregnant. While pushing the cart, the Plaintiff claims that she slipped on
a “gooey substance” on the floor. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. She attempted to steady herself by
1
The facts contained in this section are derived from the Plaintiff’s complaint and motion to remand.
holding onto the cart, but it fell on top of her while her son was still in it. Because she was
eight and one-half months pregnant, she went to the emergency room to make sure that
her unborn child was not harmed. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff’s four-year-old
son or unborn child suffered physical injury.
In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts
violations of the standard of care by Wal-Mart and an unknown employee, John Doe. The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable diligence because they
knew or should have known of the spill and failed to clean it up or, at the very least,
provide an adequate warning. The Plaintiff avers that as a result of the Defendants’
negligence, she incurred medical expenses in excess of $3,944.00 and suffered pain,
humiliation, loss of the ability to enjoy life and other damages. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. On
page three of her complaint, the Plaintiff also claims future medical expenses.2 ECF No.
1-2 at 7.
On February 16, 2016, Wal-Mart removed the case to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. Following removal, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which is now before
the Court. In her motion, the Plaintiff asserts that Wal-Mart fails in its attempt to establish
both the amount in controversy and diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff avers that Wal-Mart removed the above-styled action in bad
faith, and thus sanctions should be awarded. In its response, Wal-Mart contends that the
Plaintiff’s claims are in excess of the required amount in controversy as evinced by her
refusal to sign a binding stipulation limiting her award of damages to $74,999.99.3 Wal-
2
Although the Plaintiff mentions future medical expenses on page three of her complaint, it is devoid of any
facts supporting an award of future damages. The Court discusses this issue in greater detail in footnote
six.
3
Upon review of the proposed stipulation, the Court is compelled to articulate the standard set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1332. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000.00. Thus,
the minimum amount required for jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332 is $75,000.01.
2
Mart also argues its citizenship is diverse from the Plaintiff’s, and contends that the
citizenship of its unnamed and unknown employee, John Doe, is disregarded pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).4 In her reply, the Plaintiff claims that she seeks only past medical
expenses, and states that the inclusion of future damages on page three of her complaint
is the result of a typographical error. The Plaintiff submits that she “has not and will not
seek future medical expenses in this case, because there are none.” ECF No. 9 at 2.
The Plaintiff avers that her purported damages fall woefully short of the amount required
for federal diversity jurisdiction and that Wal-Mart’s calculations are dishonest and
exaggerated.
II. Applicable Law
A.
Removal Based on Diversity Jurisdiction
A case may be removed to federal court if original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
claims exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal has “[t]he burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction.” Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d
148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97
(1921)). Courts strictly construe removal jurisdiction. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.
Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941). Thus, “[i]f federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is
necessary.” Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151 (first citing In re Bus. Men’s Assurance Co. of Am.,
992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993); then citing Cheshire v. Coca-Cola Bottling Affiliated,
Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1098, 1102 (D.S.C. 1990)).
Section 1441(b)(1) provides, “In determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the
jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall
be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).
4
3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases
“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Section 1332 requires complete diversity, meaning that the citizenship of each plaintiff
must be diverse from the citizenship of each and every defendant. Cent. W. Va. Energy
Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). If the plaintiff “‘does not allege a specific amount
of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].’” Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d
362, 367 (4th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d
55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993)). A plaintiff’s settlement demand, although not dispositive, is
evidence of the amount in controversy.
See Contraguerro v. Hall, Civil Action No.
5:06CV150, 2007 WL 1381394, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. May 8, 2007) (citing Burns v. Windsor
Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1994)). Importantly, a plaintiff’s refusal to sign a
stipulation limiting her ability to collect damages in excess of $75,000.00 “does not
establish the requisite amount in controversy.” Id. (citing Gramc v. Millar Elevator Co., 3
F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1084 (E.D.Mo. 1998)).
B.
Awarding Costs for Improper Removal
A party opposing removal may be awarded actual expenses and attorney fees
“incurred as a result of [an improper] removal.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); ITT Indus. Credit
Co. v. Durango Crushers, Inc., 832 F.2d 307, 308 (4th Cir. 1987). However, because
courts have limited authority to award fees for improper removal, ITT Indus. Credit Co.,
832 F.2d at 308, costs should be awarded only in circumstances where a “party lacked
4
an objectively reasonable basis” for removing the case, Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
III. Discussion
The complaint does not set forth a total monetary amount of damages. Thus, WalMart must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiff’s alleged
damages are in excess of $75,000.00. See Francis, 709 F.3d at 367. Wal-Mart’s
argument in support of diversity jurisdiction is essentially that because the Plaintiff refuses
to sign an agreement stipulating that she will not seek or accept an amount greater than
$74,999.99, her claims must be over the jurisdictional amount. However, plaintiffs are
under no obligation to sign a stipulation of damages in order to avoid removal. See, e.g.,
Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Mktg., LLC, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-13574-IT, 2015 WL
8041343, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2015). Furthermore, a plaintiff’s refusal to sign a
stipulation limiting her ability to collect damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount
does not, in and of itself, establish the amount required for diversity jurisdiction. See
Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001); Contraguerro, 2007 WL
138139, at *2. At most, it may be one factor, among others, to consider in determining
whether a defendant has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See Schillaci v. WalMart, No. 2:12-cv-01127, 2012 WL
4056758, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 14, 2012); Roxby v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Civil Action
No. 5:12CV61, 2012 WL 2742959, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. July 9, 2012). Therefore, the mere
fact that the Plaintiff in this case refused to sign a stipulation is not enough for the
Defendant to overcome remand.
5
Moreover, the substance of the complaint supports remand. Although a claim for
future medical expenses is advanced under count two, the complaint is devoid of any
factual allegations that support an award of future damages.5
There are no facts
suggesting that the Plaintiff’s unborn child was harmed as a result of the slip and fall.
There are no facts alleging ongoing doctor visits. There are no facts claiming permanent
physical injury, or even temporary physical injury aside from pain. There are also no facts
suggesting a possible award of punitive damages. The only dollar amount contained
within the complaint is $3,994.00 in past medical expenses—a figure exceedingly shy of
the $75,000.01 requirement. Simply put, the complaint fails to present any facts that
would warrant an award of damages even remotely close to the jurisdictional minimum.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has made two settlement demands in this case—both of which
are less than half of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction. Common sense dictates
that initial settlement demands made by plaintiffs are typically inflated to allow room for
bargaining. Thus, in this case, the Plaintiff’s settlement demands of $37,500.00 and
$36,500.00 likely overstate her damages.
Upon careful review of the record, the Court finds that Wal-Mart has failed to prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy for diversity
jurisdiction is satisfied. Because the jurisdictional amount is lacking, the Court will not
5
Generally, the Plaintiff alleges $3,994.00 in past medical expenses and requests further compensation for
her “pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of [the] ability to enjoy life, and other damages.” ECF No. 1-2 at 6-8.
In count two, the Plaintiff sets forth an additional claim of damages for “future medical expenses.” ECF No.
1-2 at 7. In her reply in support of remand, the Plaintiff avers that the inclusion of future damages in count
two is a typographical error and declares that she “has not and will not seek future medical expenses in this
case.” ECF No. 9 at 1-2. However, because the Plaintiff raised these arguments subsequent to Wal-Mart’s
notice of removal, the Court disregards them. See Marshall v. Kimble, Civil Action No. 5:10CV127, 2011
WL 43034, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 6, 2011) (opining that, when determining whether removal is proper, the
court looks to facts existing at the time of removal). Nevertheless, despite a reference to future damages,
the Court finds Wal-Mart’s argument in support of removal deficient.
6
conduct an analysis on the diversity of citizenship requirement as it pertains to this case.
Finally, although the Court finds removal in this case inappropriate, the Court does not
find Wal-Mart’s argument in support of removal so bereft of logic that an award of costs
to the Plaintiff is warranted.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 5] and
ORDERS that this case be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West
Virginia.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record
and to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia.
DATED: May 6, 2016
7
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?