Williams et al v. Hodgson et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting Plas' 5 Motion to Remand. Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/24/11. (certified c to Ohio Co. w/docket sheet)(mji)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
LINDA WILLIAMS and CHARLES WILLIAMS,
her husband,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:11CV80
(STAMP)
ROGRE HODGSON, FLORA DAWN BENNETT
and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
I.
Background1
On April 29, 2011, the plaintiffs commenced this civil action
by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West
Virginia to recover uninsured motorist benefits from their insurer,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The
case arises out of a car accident that occurred on September 15,
2009 when defendant Rogre Hodgson (“Hodgson”) backed his car into
Linda Williams, who was walking in the crosswalk.
In addition to
the claim for uninsured motorists benefits against State Farm, the
complaint alleges claims for negligence against Hodgson and Flora
Dawn Bennett (“Bennett”), the owner of the vehicle driven by
Hodgson.
1
The plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants in
As the defendants did not file a response to the plaintiffs’
motion to remand, the facts described below are based largely on
the facts as described in the plaintiffs’ motion.
an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Circuit
Court of Ohio County.
State Farm removed the case to this Court on
June 8, 2011.
Following removal, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
In support of this motion, the
plaintiffs argue: (1) the defendants have not offered competent
proof that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied; and (2)
the defendants have not met their evidentiary burden because
settlement negotiations between the parties do not amount to proof
of the amount in controversy.
The defendants did not file a
response to the motion to remand. Nevertheless, this Court decides
the motion to remand on the merits.
II.
Applicable Law
A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal
court in instances where the federal court is able to exercise
original jurisdiction over the matter.
28 U.S.C. § 1441.
A
federal district court has original jurisdiction over cases between
citizens of different states where the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
§
1332(a).
establishing
The
party
federal
seeking
removal
jurisdiction.
See
bears
the
Mulcahey
28 U.S.C.
burden
v.
of
Columbia
Organic Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
Removal
jurisdiction
is
strictly
construed,
and
if
jurisdiction is doubtful, the federal court must remand.
2
federal
Id.
III.
Discussion
In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs argue that State
Farm has failed to satisfy its burden of proving the amount in
controversy.
According to the plaintiffs, State Farm has merely
speculated, without offering proof, as to what the damages in this
case will be.
Further, the plaintiffs contend that the settlement
negotiations between the parties do not assist the Court in valuing
the claim which is the subject of removal.
This Court agrees.
The burden of establishing that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, rests with
the party seeking removal.
Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151.
This Court
has consistently applied the “preponderance of evidence” standard
to determine whether a defendant has met its burden of proving the
amount in controversy.
When no specific amount of damages is set
forth in the complaint, the defendant bears the burden of proving
that the claim meets the requisite jurisdictional amount.
Mullins
v. Harry’s Mobile Homes, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 22, 23 (S.D. W. Va.
1994).
In such circumstances, the Court may consider the entire
record before it and may conduct its own independent inquiry to
determine
whether
the
jurisdictional minimum.
amount
in
controversy
satisfies
the
Id.
In this case, the plaintiffs’ complaint does not set forth a
total monetary sum requested.
Rather, the plaintiffs demand
judgment against defendants Hodgson and Bennett in an amount that
3
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Circuit Court of Ohio
County.
The complaint also sets forth a demand for judgment
against State Farm in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum of the Circuit Court of Ohio County, representing all
uninsured motorist bodily injury benefits due and owing to the
plaintiffs pursuant to the policies of insurance issued to them.
Moreover, the plaintiffs demand judgment against State Farm for
general damages, together with reasonable attorney fees, expenses
and costs incurred in pursuit of these claims, pre- and postjudgment interest, and such other relief as may be deemed proper.
Compl. 8.
State Farm justifies removal by referencing a settlement
demand
letter
$190,000.00.
written
by
the
plaintiffs
in
the
amount
of
State Farm also notes the serious and permanent
nature of Linda Williams’ injuries in support of its contention
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00
However, the
plaintiffs argue that the settlement demand has no evidentiary
value and does not satisfy State Farm’s burden of proving that the
case now before this Court has a value exceeding the jurisdictional
minimum.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, this
Court finds that State Farm has not met its burden of proof with
regard to the amount in controversy.
Removal cannot be based on
speculation; rather, it must be based on facts as they exist at the
4
time of removal.
See Varela v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, Inc., 86 F.
Supp. 2d 1109, 1112 (D.N.M. 2000).
Here, State Farm has offered no competent proof or tangible
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds, or it is even
highly conceivable that it will exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of
interests and costs.
Streight v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
No. 5:10CV138, 2011 WL 719159, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 22, 2011).
Instead, State Farm simply cites the amount of the plaintiffs’ last
demand and its latest offer.
The plaintiffs’ complaint does not
specify the amount of damages demanded, and the assumption that the
plaintiffs are reasonably certain to incur future pain, mental
anguish, and loss of ability to function is insufficient to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs will recover
damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum.
Therefore, the
plaintiffs’ motion to remand must be granted.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand
is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case be REMANDED
to the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia.
It is further
ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active
docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the Clerk of
5
the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia.
Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter
judgment on this matter.
DATED:
August 24, 2011
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?