Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00154/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00154-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERALD C. MCNEAL, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0154-WS-M

 )

ZEDRICK ELGIN SPENCER, et al., )

 )

Defendants )

ORDER 

This matter was removed based on diversity of citizenship. The Court sua sponte

questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, the amount in controversy. (Doc. 4). The

defendant sought and received permission to propound three requests for admission to the

plaintiff concerning the damages incurred and sought. (Docs. 8, 9). The plaintiff’s responses

establish that his “total damages in this case, including all compensatory and punitive damages,

against all defendants do not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” (Doc. 8, Exhibit

1; Doc. 12). Other responses establish that the plaintiff does not seek and will not accept any

greater award. (Id.). 

“[E]vents occurring after removal which may reduce the damages recoverable below the

amount in controversy requirement do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction.” Poore v.

American-Amicable Life Insurance Co., 218 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000). However, postremoval information — including a plaintiff’s responses to requests for admission — may be

considered in resolving the jurisdictional inquiry, so long as those responses reflect the amount

in controversy as of the time of removal rather than a post-removal reduction in the amount of

damages claimed. Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 947-49 (11th Cir.

2000). The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff’s unqualified responses reflect the state of affairs

obtaining as of the time of removal.

As set forth in the Court’s earlier order, the defendant bears the burden by proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the

jurisdictional threshold. Because the plaintiff’s responses to requests for admission establish that

Case 1:06-cv-00154-WS-M Document 13 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

the amount in controversy at the time of removal did not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and because the defendant has neither presented nor sought to present additional

evidence on the issue, the defendant has not met its burden. Accordingly, because subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court is lacking, the motion to remand is granted. This action is hereby

remanded to the Circuit Court of Mobile County. 

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00154-WS-M Document 13 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2