Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00874/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00874-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

CURTIS SPIDELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:07cv874-MHT

) (WO) 

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, )

INC., and MRC RECEIVABLES )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand

this lawsuit back to state court.

Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against defendants

charging that they wrongfully sued him to collect a debt

that he alleges that he did not owe. Plaintiff lists two

causes of action: malicious prosecution (for filing suit

against him to collect the debt) and negligence (for

improperly filing the suit after he alleges he informed

the defendants that he did not owe the debt). Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-00874-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

seeks $74,000.00 for malicious prosecution and an

unspecified amount for negligence. Defendants then

removed this lawsuit to this court based on diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.

A removing defendant has the burden of proving that

the $75,000.00 amount-in-controversy requirement for

diversity jurisdiction is met, Leonard v. Enterprise

Rent-A-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002), and, in

making the determination of whether this burden has been

met, a court is limited to “the notice of removal and

accompanying documents.” Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.,

483 F.3d 1184, 1214 (11th Cir. 2007). “A conclusory

allegation in the notice of removal that the

jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth

the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is

insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden.” Williams

v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir.

2001). The conclusory allegation in the notice of

removal--that, because plaintiff “has specifically prayed

Case 3:07-cv-00874-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 3
for $74,000.00 for his malicious prosecution claim, and

has also prayed for an unspecified amount of money for

his negligence claim, ... the amount in controversy in

this case clearly exceeds $75,000.00"--is insufficient.

There is nothing in the notice to indicate why the

damages sought in the two counts are not the same and

thus should not be aggregated, with the result that the

amount sought is only $74,000.00.

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that the plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No.

5) is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),

this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Randolph

County, Alabama, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate

steps to effect the remand.

DONE, this the 26th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00874-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3