Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_23-cv-00468/USCOURTS-alsd-1_23-cv-00468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS FOSTER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 23-0468-WS-M

 )

ALABAMA & GULF COAST )

RAILWAY, LLC, )

 )

Defendant. )

 ORDER

The defendant recently removed this action on the basis of diversity of 

citizenship. “Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. 

Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). Because, “once a federal court determines that it 

is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue,” it 

“should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest 

possible stage in the proceedings.” University of South Alabama v. American 

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Upon review, the Court is 

unable to confirm its subject matter jurisdiction.

The complaint, (Doc. 1-1), alleges that the plaintiff was injured when he 

fell at his workplace, allegedly due to the defendant’s negligence or wantonness. 

The plaintiff asserts “serious bodily injuries,” including: an unidentified right 

knee injury; an unidentified left shoulder injury; and two lumbar herniated nuclei 

pulposi. (Id. at 11). The plaintiff’s damages are asserted as: an unidentified 

surgery; unidentified medical treatment, past and future; unidentified and 

unquantified medical expenses, past and future; undescribed physical pain and 

suffering, and undescribed mental anguish, past and future; unidentified 

permanent injury; unquantified loss of wages and loss of earning capacity, past 

Case 1:23-cv-00468-WS-M Document 5 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

and future; and loss of enjoyment of life, past and future. (Id.). The complaint 

seeks compensatory damages “in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of 

this Court.” (Id. at 11, 13). 

As the party seeking a federal forum, the burden rests on the defendant to 

demonstrate that the Court has such jurisdiction. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 

F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the complaint does not demand a 

specific sum, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs. Roe v. Michelin North America, Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th

Cir. 2010). A defendant may demonstrate that the amount in controversy is 

facially apparent from the complaint itself, or it may offer evidence beyond the 

pleading to meet its burden. Id. 

The defendant points to the face of the complaint, (Doc. 1 at 8), but the 

Court is not persuaded. In Williams, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff 

tripped over a curb and suffered permanent physical and mental injuries, incurred 

substantial medical expenses, suffered lost wages, experienced a diminished 

earning capacity, and would continue to suffer these damages in the future, and it 

demanded both compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 1318. The Eleventh 

Circuit held that, based on these allegations, “it is not facially apparent from [the] 

complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. at 1320. The 

instant complaint largely mirrors that in Williams. The defendant, which has not 

acknowledged Williams, has failed to show that it does not doom removal in this 

case. 

The defendant also argues that negligence and wantonness claims “often” 

generate awards of over $75,000, and it lists three cherry-picked examples. (Doc. 

1 at 8). The defendant’s effort does not overcome the “pronounced judicial 

skepticism of results in other cases as a means of” demonstrating that the amount 

in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Blount v. Coe Manufacturing 

Co., 2020 WL 1866190 at *3 (S.D. Ala. 2020). 

Case 1:23-cv-00468-WS-M Document 5 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant is ordered to file and serve, 

on or before December 29, 2023, such supplemental materials as it deems

adequate to sustain its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, failing 

which this action will be remanded, without further notice, for want of such 

jurisdiction.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2023.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:23-cv-00468-WS-M Document 5 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>