Title: Whitaker v. Heinrich Schepers GMBH & Co. KG

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
SHERMAN WHITAKER 
 
v.  Record No. 071197 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 June 6, 2008 
HEINRICH SCHEPERS GMBH & CO. KG 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 
James A. Cales, Jr., Judge 
 
In this appeal we consider whether the trial court abused 
its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend his 
ad damnum clause. 
FACTS and PROCEEDINGS 
 
On August 14, 2002, Sherman E. Whitaker was injured while 
working as a longshoreman on a boat docked in Portsmouth, 
Virginia and owned by Heinrich Schepers GMBH & Co. KG, a 
German corporation (Heinrich).  On January 30, 2004, Whitaker 
filed a motion for judgment in the Circuit Court of the City 
of Portsmouth alleging Heinrich’s negligence caused Whitaker’s 
injuries and seeking damages of $74,000.  In answers to 
interrogatories filed on April 26, 2004, Whitaker stated that 
his damages exceeded $74,000, but he did not seek to amend the 
ad damnum clause of his motion for judgment.  Whitaker 
supplemented these answers on October 14, 2004, again 
indicating that his damages exceeded $74,000. 
In November 2004, Heinrich asked Whitaker to stipulate 
that his damage claim was limited to $74,000.  Whitaker 
declined to make the requested stipulation.  On December 14, 
2004, Heinrich filed a notice of removal in the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based on 
diversity and because “the amount in controversy now exceeds 
$75,000.”  See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2000).  Whitaker filed a 
motion to remand the case to the state court asserting that 
Heinrich’s notice of removal was untimely.  Whitaker argued 
that the April 26 interrogatory answers put Heinrich on notice 
that the damage claim exceeded $74,000 and therefore, under 28 
U.S.C. § 1446(b) (2000) Heinrich was required to file its 
notice of removal within 30 days of that date.  Prior to any 
hearing on either party’s motion, Heinrich agreed to a consent 
order remanding the case to the state court. 
 
In December 2005, Whitaker filed a motion to amend his ad 
damnum clause to $2.5 million.  The trial court denied that 
motion and Whitaker’s motion for reconsideration.  Whitaker 
sought to amend the ad damnum clause again in June 2006, and 
the trial court again denied that motion, finding that the 
original motion for judgment seeking damages of only $74,000 
was filed in bad faith because it deliberately pled “damages 
below the jurisdictional amount with the intention of evading 
federal jurisdiction” and that Heinrich would be prejudiced by 
 
2
this bad faith action.  The trial court granted Whitaker leave 
to file a petition for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Code 
§ 8.01-670.1.  This Court declined to grant the interlocutory 
appeal and dismissed the petition for appeal by order entered 
on January 9, 2007.  Whitaker v. Heinrich Schepers GMBH & Co. 
KG, Record No. 061672 (January 9, 2007). 
On February 22, 2007, Whitaker filed another motion to 
increase the ad damnum clause to $5,000,000, which motion was 
again denied by the trial court on the ground previously 
stated.  Whitaker then chose to have the matter tried by the 
court rather than by a jury.  After Whitaker presented his 
evidence, Heinrich asked that summary judgment be entered in 
Whitaker’s favor and that damages be awarded in the amount 
requested in the ad damnum clause, $74,000.  In response, 
Whitaker argued that his evidence established damages in 
excess of $74,000, and requested that the court either grant 
his renewed request to amend the ad damnum clause, or enter 
judgment for an amount “that would fairly and reasonably 
compensate Mr. Whitaker for his injuries.”  The trial court 
denied Heinrich’s summary judgment motion and Whitaker’s 
motions, but entered judgment in favor of Whitaker for 
$74,000.  Whitaker timely appealed to this Court. 
DISCUSSION 
 
3
 
In deciding whether to grant the amendment of a pleading 
to increase the amount sought in the ad damnum clause, “a 
circuit court must consider whether the defendant will be 
prejudiced” by allowing the amendment, and “whether such 
prejudice will affect the defendant’s ability to have a fair 
trial.”  Peterson v. Castano, 260 Va. 299, 303, 534 S.E.2d 
736, 738 (2000).  In addition, the circuit court must consider 
“the plaintiff’s right to be compensated fully for any damages 
caused by the defendant’s acts or omissions.”  Id.  This 
decision rests within the discretion of the circuit court and 
our review on appeal is limited to whether the circuit court 
abused its discretion.  Id. 
Whitaker argues that the factual premise upon which the 
trial court relied in determining prejudice was erroneous and, 
thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the 
motion to amend the ad damnum clause.  Whitaker also argues 
that Heinrich would not have been prejudiced by the amendment 
to the ad damnum clause in December 2005 because Heinrich had 
been aware of the increased damage claim since April 26 or 
October 14, 2004, no discovery had been taken, the discovery 
deadline was March 24, 2006, the period afforded for expert 
designation had not expired, and trial was set for April 26, 
2006.  Therefore, Whitaker asserts that allowing him to amend 
his ad damnum clause would not have prejudiced Heinrich’s 
 
4
ability to have a fair trial and that refusing the motion 
denied Whitaker the ability to be fully compensated for his 
losses.  
Because the denial of a motion to amend is based on a 
finding of prejudice to the defendant, we begin by reviewing 
the prejudice the trial court found in this case.  The trial 
court determined that the “[d]efendant would be prejudiced 
from plaintiff’s bad faith conduct in deliberately pleading 
damages below the jurisdictional amount with the intention of 
evading federal jurisdiction by virtue of the pleading.”1  
Stated another way, the trial court found that Heinrich was 
prejudiced because Whitaker intentionally declined to increase 
the ad damnum clause until after Heinrich’s right to remove 
the case to federal court “evaporated.” 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a litigant may remove a case 
to federal court if there is diversity of citizenship between 
the litigants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).  Notice of removal must be filed 
within 30 days of the filing of the original pleading or any 
“other paper” indicating that the amount sought in damages 
exceeds $75,000.  28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).  The case is removed to 
                                                 
1 Although the trial court stated that Whitaker’s counsel 
engaged in bad faith conduct, neither Heinrich nor the trial 
court, sua sponte, suggested that sanctions for such conduct 
should be imposed under Code § 8.01-271.1. 
 
5
federal court upon filing the notice of removal but may be 
remanded to the state court if the conditions for removal are 
not met.  28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).  In construing this provision, 
federal courts have not limited the amount in controversy to 
the amount requested in the plaintiff’s ad damnum clause.  The 
amount in controversy for purposes of removing a case to 
federal court can be determined from the “totality of the 
circumstances,” including answers to interrogatories.  See 
Schwenk v. Cobra Mfg. Co., 322 F.Supp.2d 676, 678 (E.D. Va. 
2004); Lien v. H.E.R.C. Prods., Inc., 8 F.Supp.2d 531, 534 
(E.D. Va. 1998); see also Van Gosen v. Arcadian Motor 
Carriers, 825 F.Supp. 981, 982 (D. Kan. 1993) (answers to 
interrogatories can constitute an “other paper” under 28 
U.S.C. § 1446(b) giving notice that a state court action has 
become removable); accord Smith v. International Harvester, 
621 F.Supp. 1005, 1006-08 (D. Nev. 1985).  
In this case, Whitaker sent Heinrich answers to 
interrogatories on April 26, 2004, which indicated that his 
damages were likely to exceed $75,000.  Specifically, Whitaker 
stated that he had incurred lost wages of $57,031.11 and 
future lost wages of $452,364.12.  The interrogatory answers 
also indicated that his injuries would require continued 
treatment and future surgery.  In supplemental answers served 
on Heinrich on October 14, 2004, Whitaker stated that his 
 
6
claimed future and past medical expenses totaled $119,070.32.  
Although Heinrich received “other papers” indicating the 
damages claimed exceeded $75,000, it did not file a notice of 
removal with the federal court until December 14, 2004, well 
beyond the 30-day limitations period available to him under 28 
U.S.C. § 1446(b).  Furthermore, Heinrich’s counsel signed an 
agreed consent order remanding the case to the Circuit Court 
of the City of Portsmouth and stated to that court and to this 
Court in oral argument that, although he had notice of the 
increased damage claim, he failed to timely file the notice of 
removal in federal court. 
This record demonstrates that Whitaker’s actions did not 
cause Heinrich’s right to remove the case to federal court to 
“evaporate” as stated by the trial court.  Rather, Heinrich’s 
inability to remove the case to the federal court resulted 
from its failure to timely file a notice of removal.  
Therefore, the trial court’s finding of prejudice was based on 
an incorrect factual premise and denying Whitaker’s motion to 
amend the ad damnum clause on this basis was an abuse of 
discretion.2  Nothing in this record indicates any other 
                                                 
2 In resolving this issue we need not consider whether 
precluding the ability to remove a case to federal court would 
constitute prejudice to the defendant under Peterson, 260 Va. 
at 303, 534 S.E.2d at 738.  
 
7
 
8
prejudice that Heinrich would have suffered if Whitaker’s 
motion to amend the ad damnum clause had been granted. 
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be 
reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.3  The 
further proceedings, however, will be limited to the issue of 
damages, as the trial court’s decision on liability has not 
been challenged by either party. 
Reversed in part and remanded. 
                                                 
3 In light of our decision we need not consider Whitaker’s 
remaining claim that the denial of his motion to amend denied 
his right to have the amount of damage determined by a jury.