Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00559/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESA ANGELA SANDERSON, )

 et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0559-WS-B

 )

DAIMLER CHRYSLER MOTOR )

CORPORATION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. 7). The

parties have filed briefs and evidentiary materials in support of their respective positions,

(Docs. 8, 10, 13), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the

foregoing and other relevant materials in the file, the Court concludes that the motion is

due to be denied.

The complaint alleges that a vehicle being driven by plaintiff Theresa Sanderson

struck a light pole and that, because the air bag did not deploy, she suffered “serious and

permanent disfigurement and scarring to her face and body.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 4-5). The

complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an amount exceeding the $10,000

jurisdictional threshold of Alabama circuit courts. The defendant timely removed on the

basis of diversity. The plaintiffs concede that the parties are of diverse citizenship, but

they argue that “there is no evidence” before the Court that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 8 at 1). 

“[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 ... jurisdictional amount.” Tapscott v. MS

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

Case 1:07-cv-00559-WS-B Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 3
1

See Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2007) (the

value of other tort claims could not be considered because it was not received from the

plaintiffs and, at any rate, “we question whether such general evidence is ever of much

use in establishing the value of claims in any one particular suit.”); Federated Mutual

Insurance Co. v. McKinnon Motors LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[M]ere

citation to what has happened in the past does nothing to overcome the indeterminate and

speculative nature of [the defendant’s] assertion” that the amount in controversy exceeded

$75,000).

2

See Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (a plaintiff’s

“refus[al] to stipulate that her [claims] do not exceed and will not exceed the sum of

$75,000.00 ... standing alone does not satisfy [the defendant’s] burden of proof on the

jurisdictional issue,” because “[t]here are several reasons why a plaintiff would not so

stipulate”). 

-2-

Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). The only evidence presented

by the defendant is a sampling of products liability cases in which the plaintiff was

awarded more than $75,000, and a letter from defense counsel asking plaintiffs’ counsel

to confirm that Theresa Sanderson is seeking more than $75,000 and stating that he would

construe silence as providing that confirmation. (Doc. 1 at 3-4 & Exhibit B). Neither

results in other cases1

 nor silence in the face of a demand to clarify damages2 is adequate

to establish the amount in controversy. 

The plaintiffs assume this is the end of the matter, but they have overlooked the

critical first step in the analysis. “When the complaint does not claim a specific amount

of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the

complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” 

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

Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1211 (11th Cir. 2007) (“If the jurisdictional amount

is either stated clearly on the face of the documents before the court, or readily deducible

from them, then the court has jurisdiction.”). Certain injuries are by their nature so

substantial as to make it readily apparent that the amount in controversy requirement is

satisfied. For example, an allegation in a complaint that the plaintiff was rendered a

Case 1:07-cv-00559-WS-B Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 3
3

(Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 10 at 1 n.1).

4

Because Theresa Sanderson’s claim exceeds $75,000, it is irrelevant whether her

husband’s claim for loss of consortium does as well. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah

Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558-59 (2005) (if the claims of one plaintiff exceed the

jurisdictional threshold, the claims of other plaintiffs may in a proper case be retained

pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction). 

-3-

paraplegic would render the case removable, even if the complaint did not expressly

demand over $75,000, and even if it was silent as to medical expenses, pain and suffering,

mental anguish and lost income. In such cases, the description of the injury itself

demonstrates that the amount in controversy “more likely than not exceeds the ...

jurisdictional amount.”

This is one of those cases. As the defendant notes,3

 the complaint alleges that

Theresa Sanderson has experienced “serious and permanent disfigurement and scarring to

her face and body.” This allegation establishes, for purposes of the jurisdictional inquiry,

that Sanderson’s facial appearance — around which members of the human race base

much of their self-concept — has been badly damaged and that the damage will last a

lifetime. Whether or not she undergoes surgery, and whether or not she loses income,

Sanderson has experienced a shattering loss that few would be willing to share at any

price. The Court concludes that the complaint of its own force is sufficient to meet the

defendant’s burden of establishing that the amount in controversy more likely than not

exceeds $75,000.4

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00559-WS-B Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3