Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00582/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00582-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

EMILIA STRONG SYKES, )

et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 3:06cv582-MHT

BENJAMIN F. PAYTON, etc., ) (WO) 

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of this court

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which authorizes federal

district courts to exercise original jurisdiction in

civil actions between citizens of different states “where

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 

“The rule governing dismissal for want of

jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is

that ... the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the

claim is apparently made in good faith. ... It must

Case 3:06-cv-00582-MHT-CSC Document 34 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 3
2

appear to legal certainty that the claim is really less

than the jurisdictional amount to justify the dismissal.”

St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S.

283, 288-89 (1938). For amount in controversy purposes,

the value of injunctive or declaratory relief is the

value of the object of the litigation measured from the

plaintiff’s perspective. Ericsson GE Mobile

Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Elecs.,

Inc., 120 F.3d 216, 218-20 (11th Cir. 1997). “In other

words, the value of the requested injunctive relief is

the monetary value of the benefit that would flow to the

plaintiff if the injunction were granted.” Morrison v.

Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1268 (11th Cir. 2000)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Earlier in these proceedings, the defendants

questioned whether this court had subject-matter

jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, but based their

argument on the lack of a federal question. At the

conclusion of the hearing held on July 31, 2006, it was

Case 3:06-cv-00582-MHT-CSC Document 34 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 3
unclear if the defendants were now contending that this

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the

plaintiffs have not satisfied the amount-in-controversy

requirement of diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants have

until August 22, 2006, to file a brief addressing the

question of subject-matter jurisdiction. The brief

should address, at a minimum, the appropriate burden of

proof for this inquiry; the appropriate method for

valuing the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs;

and the effect, in any, of the court’s dismissal of the

plaintiffs’ claim for outrage on the computation of the

amount in controversy.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs will have

until September 5, 2006, to respond. 

DONE, this the 1st day of August, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00582-MHT-CSC Document 34 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 3