United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER DENYING REMAND
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
motor vehicle collision action is before the Court on the
motion to remand filed by Polly Love and Timothy Love. Doc.
#7. Because the Court has jurisdiction over this case, the
motion to remand will be denied.
12, 2016, Polly Love and Timothy Love filed a complaint
against Chester's Diesel, LLC
(“Chester's”), in the Circuit Court of
Bolivar County, Mississippi. Doc. #2. In their complaint, the
Loves allege that on September 1, 2015, their vehicle was
struck by a truck owned and operated by Chester's.
Id. at ¶ 6. The Loves further allege that Polly
“suffered significant bodily injuries in the
collision” and that “[t]he injuries to Polly Love
negatively affected the party's normal conjugal
relationship as well as the household services that Polly
Love provided to Timothy Love prior to the collision.”
Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. The complaint seeks
damages “in the amount of $74, 500.00 as actual and
compensatory damages, plus all legal costs.”
Id. at 4. Chester's was served with a copy of
the summons and complaint on or about July 26, 2016. Doc.
August 25, 2016, Chester's removed the state court action
to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. On
September 27, 2016, the Loves filed a motion to remand this
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. #7.
Chester's responded to the motion on October 14, 2016.
Doc. #9. The Loves did not file a reply in support of their
motion to remand.
the federal removal statute, a civil action may be removed
from a state court to a federal court on the basis of
diversity. This is so because the federal court has original
subject matter jurisdiction over such cases.”
Int'l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy
Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 199 (5th Cir. 2016).
“The party seeking to remove bears the burden of
showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was
proper. Any ambiguities are construed against removal and in
favor of remand to state court.” Scarlott v. Nissan
N. Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 883, 887 (5th Cir. 2014)
(internal citations omitted). In this regard, “[i]f at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
notice of removal, Chester's argues that this action
implicates the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Diversity
jurisdiction requires that there be (1) complete diversity
between the parties; and (2) an amount in controversy in
excess of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
U.S.C. § 1332; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519
U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
diversity “requires that all persons on one side of the
controversy be citizens of different states than all persons
on the other side.” Valliancourt v. PNC Bank,
Nat'l Ass'n, 771 F.3d 843, 847 (5th Cir. 2014).
Here, the Loves are citizens of Mississippi. Doc. #2 at
¶¶ 2. Chester's is “a single-member
limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Eudora, Arkansas, whose sole member, Chester
Hensley is ... a citizen of Eudora, Arkansas.” Doc. #1
at ¶ 17. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes
that complete diversity exists. See Tewari De-Ox Sys.,