United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND
LOUIS
GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
BEFORE
THE COURT is the Motion to Remand [30] filed by the defendant
Allstate Insurance Company. Although the parties have
notified the Court that the Motion is unopposed, the Court
finds that remand would be inappropriate under the
circumstances presented.
BACKGROUND
In his
Complaint, the plaintiff Jonathan Lawrence sought $45, 000 in
underinsured motorists benefits from Allstate as well as
unspecified amounts of extra-contractual and punitive
damages. Allstate removed the case to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction, claiming that the amount in
controversy exceeded $75, 000. After the parties completed
discovery, Allstate filed the present unopposed Motion to
Remand, because Lawrence has agreed to voluntarily dismiss
his claims for extra-contractual and punitive damages and
“has agreed to stipulate that any and all of his claims
against Allstate Insurance Company will not ever exceed the
uninsured motorist coverage benefits available under the
Allstate policies.” (Def.'s Mot. at 2, ECF No.
30).[1]
DISCUSSION
“[A]ny
civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction may be
removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court
of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). Original federal diversity jurisdiction
exists “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). After removal, a party may file a
motion for remand, and “[i]f it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The
Fifth Circuit has provided the following guidance for
determining whether a post-removal amendment of the complaint
affects the Court's jurisdiction:
[O]nce the district court's jurisdiction is established,
subsequent events that reduce the amount in controversy to
less than $75, 000 generally do not divest the court of
diversity jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts that support
removal must be judged at the time of removal. While
post-removal affidavits may be considered in determining the
amount in controversy at the time of removal, such affidavits
may be considered only if the basis for jurisdiction is
ambiguous at the time of removal. Additionally, if it is
facially apparent from the petition that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000 at the time of removal,
post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments
reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of
jurisdiction.
Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883
(5th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
In its
Motion to Remand, Allstate asserts that it removed the case
to this Court on July 14, 2016, because Lawrence “was
claiming damages in excess of $75, 000 and diversity
existed.” (Def.'s Mot. at 1, ECF No. 30). Thus,
there is no indication that Lawrence's initial demand for
damages was ambiguous. Even if Lawrence does at some point
file a stipulation agreeing to accept less than $75, 000 or
amend his complaint to reduce the damages sought, those
actions will not divest the Court of jurisdiction unless
Lawrence demonstrates that he actually sought less than $75,
000 at the time of removal. See St. Paul Mercury Indem.
Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292, 58 S.Ct. 586,
592, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938)(holding that where a plaintiff after
removal, by stipulation, by affidavit, or by amendment of his
pleadings, reduces the claim below the requisite amount, it
does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.)
Generally,
remand is only proper when “it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Plaintiff is master of his
complaint and casual or imprudent demands for damages only
invite removal. But, since it appears that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction, Allstate's Motion to Remand must
be denied.
IT IS,
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Remand
[30] filed by the defendant Allstate Insurance Company is
DENIED.
IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties shall promptly
notify the magistrate judge of this order and submit a
proposed order lifting ...