Hatfield v. Wilson
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 MOTION to Remand to Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 5/24/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (dcm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
JAN BARRY HATFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-0944
CLARKE WILSON, JR. and
TURMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
a limited liability company,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Jan Barry Hatfield’s motion to remand this action to
the Circuit Court of Cabell County, West Virginia (ECF No. 10). For the reasons stated below, the
Court concludes that Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing that the requisite amount
is in controversy and DENIES the motion.
DISCUSSION
This case arises out of a contract dispute in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes
damages for breach of an employment contract. In the ad damnum clause of Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states as follows:
Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays that he be awarded judgment against Defendant
Wilson, Defendant Turman Construction, or both of them, in and for the following:
a. Compensatory damages for the balance of employment salary due unto him in and
for a principal sum of $74,000;
b. Pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided by law;
c. Costs, including reasonable and statutory attorney fees; and
d. Such other and further relief as to which the Plaintiff may be deemed entitled
Defendant removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, which together permit removal to federal court of cases involving citizens of different states
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff contends
that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Defendants contend that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Diversity
of citizenship is undisputed; the sole issue is whether the amount in controversy is satisfied.
Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the demand for
compensatory damages is only $74,000. However, in West Virginia, a plaintiff is not limited to the
amount demanded in the complaint. Strawn v. AT&T Mobility, Inc., 513 F. Supp.2d 599, 603 (S.D.
W. Va. 2007). Therefore, “an ad damnum clause that seeks an amount below the jurisdictional
threshold is not, in and of itself, enough here to deny federal jurisdiction.” Id. (citing McCoy v. Erie
Ins. Co., 147 F. Supp.2d 481, 484-86 (S.D. W. Va. 2001). Instead, in determining the amount in
controversy for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, “the court may look to the entire record
before it and make an independent evaluation as to whether or not the jurisdictional amount is in
issue.” White v. J.C. Penney Life Insurance Co., 861 F. Supp. 25, 27 (S.D.W. Va. 1994) (citing 14A
Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3725
at 423-24 (1985)). In making this determination, the court “is not required to leave its common
sense behind.” Mullins v. Harry’s Mobile Homes, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 22, 24 (S.D.W. Va. 1994).
Finally, it is Defendants’ burden to establish that Plaintiff’s claims exceed the jurisdictional amount,
-2-
and the Defendants must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
Strawn, 513 F. Supp.2d at 605; McCoy, 147 F. Supp.2d at 489.1
In the Motion to Remand, Plaintiff included an affidavit purporting to limit any recovery to
$74,000, and Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that this Court include language in a remand order that
would prohibit recovery in excess of $74,000. This Court has consistently remanded cases where
a Plaintiff executes an affidavit or certification limiting recovery, other than an ad damnum clause,
before removal.2 See McCoy, 147 F. Supp. 2d at 485. Here, Plaintiff filed an affidavit and
certification after removal, as exhibits attached to the Motion to Remand. Post-removal affidavits
and certifications do not satisfy McCoy and will not defeat federal jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages of $6,800 per month from
at least February 2009 through February 2010, for a total of at least $81,600. First Am. Compl. ¶¶510. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 10. By agreement of
the parties, the Court deferred briefing on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pending resolution
of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. Having resolved that issue, the Court sets the following deadlines
1
Defendants’ reply memorandum invokes the amendments to the federal removal statute that
were passed as part of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011. In the
removal context, the recent amendments apply only to cases originally filed in State court more than
thirty days after the enactment of the amendments. Pub. L. No. 112-63, December 7, 2011, 125 Stat
758, at § 105. The Act was signed by the President on December 7, 2011, and this case was
commenced in Cabell County Circuit Court on December 30, 2011, less than thirty days later. Thus,
the amendments to § 1446 do not apply.
2
Having concluded that the recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 do not apply to this case,
the Court expresses no view as to their effect on this practice.
-3-
for the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 6): Plaintiff’s responsive memoranda shall be due no later
than June 10, 2011; Defendants’ replies shall be due no later than June 20, 2012. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
May 24, 2012
ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?