Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_08-cv-00757/USCOURTS-alnd-4_08-cv-00757-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liabilty
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

Defendant The Children’s Place, which party Clayco has identified as instead 1

having the proper name of “The Children’s Place Service Company, LLC” (see Doc.

#1 at 3 ¶ 5) had not been served with a summons and complaint at the time of

Clayco’s removal, but through communication between counsel, it consented to

Clayco’s filing of the removal petition. (Id. at 3 ¶ 6). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

DEKALB ELDER CARE

CORPORATION, d/b/a Wills

Creek Village,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, a

Disney Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

] 

]

]

]

Case No.: 4:08-CV-757-VEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This property damage case was removed to this court from the Circuit Court

of DeKalb County, Alabama, by Defendant Clayco, Inc. (“Clayco”) on April 29,

2008, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See 1

generally Doc. #1). The court has before it Plaintiff’s Objection to Petition for

Removal and Request to Remand (“Request to Remand”) (Doc. #4) filed on May 6,

2008. On May 13, 2008, Clayco filed its response (Doc. #6) to Plaintiff’s Request to

FILED

 2008 May-14 AM 09:21

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:08-cv-00757-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 3
2

Remand. As explained below, the case is due to be remanded to the Circuit Court of

DeKalb County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

II. ANALYSIS 

In its response, after explaining all the reasons leading up to its decision to

remove, Clayco ultimately concludes that a remand of the lawsuit is appropriate based

upon Plaintiff’s recent representations that it does not and will not seek damages in

excess of the jurisdictional minimum (i.e., $75,000.00):

As an officer of this Honorable Court, and in conformance with

the May 7, 2008 Order entered in this case, the undersigned counsel of

record for this Defendant, while drafting this pleading on May 12, 2008,

contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and asked, point blank, if the Plaintiff

seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00 today, tomorrow, next year, or

at any time in the future. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that she had been

back to the facility of the Plaintiff, communicated with the

Administrator of the Plaintiff, verified that the alleged wrongful blasting

activities of the Defendants have ceased and verified that the damage to

the real property of the Plaintiff is concluded or finalized. Plaintiff’s

counsel advised that she and her client do not and will not seek damages

in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, due to and based upon the representations made

by Plaintiff’s counsel on May 12, 2008[,] to the undersigned, this

Defendant concedes that this case is due to be remanded back to the

Circuit Court of De[K]alb County, Alabama for further proceedings.

(Doc. #6 at 3 ¶ 6; id. at 3-4 (emphasis added)). 

III. CONCLUSION

Therefore, for good cause shown and with the removing party’s consent,

Case 4:08-cv-00757-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Plaintiff’s Request to Remand is due to be granted, and the case is due to be

remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and more particularly for the admitted

failure to meet the requisite amount in controversy. Accordingly, an order will be

entered remanding the case to the Circuit Court of DeKalb County.

DONE and ORDERED this 14 day of May, 2008. th

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

 United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00757-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 3