Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00797/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00797-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

TAMMY ALEXANDER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 2:05cv797-MHT

CAPTAIN D’s, LLC, ) (WO)

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This lawsuit, which was removed from state court to

federal court based on diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 & 1441, is now before the

court on plaintiff Tammy Alexander’s motion to remand.

Alexander contends that the amount in controversy is

insufficient to confer diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the court

concludes that Alexander’s motion should be denied. 

Section 1332 requires that the amount involved,

exclusive of interest and costs, exceed $ 75,000.

Alexander contends that employees of defendant Captain

D’s, LLC, served her iced tea mixed with bleach or some

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MHT-CSC Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 5
2

other sanitizing solution and that she drank three gulps

of it before realizing it contained bleach. Her

complaint charges Captain D’s with 13 counts, including

strict liability in tort; breach of implied warranty of

merchantability; negligence; wantonness; reckless

misrepresentation; suppression; fraudulent

misrepresentation; willful misrepresentation; willful

deception; innocent misrepresentation; negligent,

reckless, or wanton hiring, supervision, and retention;

respondeat superior liability; and violation of the

Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act, 1975 Ala. Code

§§ 8-19-5 (7) & (27). The complaint seeks compensatory

damages and punitive damages, as well as treble damages

on the Deceptive Trade Practice Act claim, but does not

list a specific amount that Alexander is seeking.

“[W]here a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand

for damages in state court, a removing defendant must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount

in controversy more likely than not exceeds [the

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MHT-CSC Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 5
3

jurisdictional limit].” Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv.

Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on

other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069

(11th Cir. 2000). Further, “[w]hen the complaint does

not claim a specific amount of damages ... [and] the

jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the

complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal

and may require evidence relevant to the amount in

controversy at the time the case was removed.” Williams

v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).

Here, Captain D’s has submitted deposition testimony

from Alexander that demonstrates that the amount in

controversy in this case exceeds $ 75,000. According to

Alexander’s testimony, she has missed about two months of

work as a result of her injuries; she continues to

experience numbness in her throat, difficulty swallowing,

and digestive problems; and she incurred substantial

medical costs and will require additional surgery. To

summarize her own words, the incident completely changed

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MHT-CSC Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 5
4

her life: she had to change her diet, her weight has been

unstable, she continues to have sporadic physical and

health consequences from the incident, and her

relationship with her husband has suffered. She also

testified that the employees who served her the tea

laughed before and after she drank the tea-and-bleach

mixture and that she believes the employees purposely

poisoned her. 

Although Captain D’s also cites “representative

cases” from Alabama courts that it contends prove the

value of this case, the factual backgrounds in those

cases are not identical to the present case, so the court

cannot draw any definitive conclusions from them. Some

juries may have awarded damages beyond the jurisdictional

limit for similar causes of action, but that does not

prove that a jury would award more than $ 75,000 on the

particular facts of this case.

Nonetheless, the court concludes that the deposition

testimony cited by Captain D’s establishes “by a

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MHT-CSC Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 5
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

controversy more likely than not exceeds” $ 75,000.

Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1357. Indeed, in light of the

alleged intentional conduct of the Captain D’s employees,

the court cannot imagine that Alexander would recover

less than the jurisdictional amount should a jury believe

her version of events. 

Alexander’s counsel’s refusal to stipulate that

Alexander will not seek more than $ 75,000 in damages

also supports this conclusion. Although “a refusal to

stipulate standing alone does not satisfy [defendant’s]

burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue,” Williams,

269 F.3d at 1320, it is nonetheless some evidence of the

value of the case.

Accordingly, it is the ORDERED that plaintiff Tammy

Alexander’s motion to remand (Doc. 12) is denied. 

DONE, this the 14th day of June, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MHT-CSC Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 5 of 5