Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_16-cv-00833/USCOURTS-alnd-5_16-cv-00833-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA MITCHELL et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE

SERVICES, L.L.C.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:16-cv-00833-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Barbara Lee Mitchell, Homer Ray Mitchell, and Michael Ray Mitchell

originally filed this action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Alabama, asserting

claims of “negligence, wantonness, trespass, and nuisance arising out of Defendant’s

failure to ameliorate a faulty septic tank and the resultant sewage on Plaintiffs’

property.”

1 Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, L.L.C., timely removed the action

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This action is before the

court on plaintiffs’ motion to remand,

2

and defendant’s response thereto.

3

In support of

their motion to remand, plaintiffs state, in pertinent part:

2. On May 17, 2016, counsel for Defendant emailed counsel for

Plaintiff asking for a written demand to accompany his “report” to

1 Doc. no. 4 (Motion to Remand and Brief in Support Thereof), at 1.

2 Doc. no. 4.

3 Doc. no. 6.

FILED

 2016 Jul-01 PM 01:31

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 6
his client. (Email from defense counsel attached as Plaintiff’s

“Exhibit A.”). Defense counsel made multiple overtures regarding

“resolution” ofthis case, one of which can be seen in Exhibit A.

3. On May 17, 2016, in response to defense counsel’s overtures

regarding settlement, counsel for Plaintiff prepared a written

demand for $100,000, or in the alternative, for $75,000 and title to

the land held by Defendant. (Demand Letter attached as Plaintiff’s

“Exhibit B.”). The demand letter was sent to defense counsel on

May 17, 2016.

4. On May 19, 2016, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal based on

diversity of citizenship federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

5. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not seek a specific amount of damages.

Defendant’s sole evidence for establishing that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 is the written demand prepared by

Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Doc. no. 4 (Motion to Remand and Brief in Support Thereof), at 1-2. In summary,

plaintiffs seek remand on the basis that defendant has failed to demonstrate, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that their claims exceed $75,000 in value. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a) (specifying that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive

ofinterest and costs,” and, there exists complete diversity of citizenship).

Defendant responds as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts counts for negligence, wantonness,

nuisance, and trespass. (Doc. 1-3.). They request compensatory and

punitive damages, but do not specify or limit the amount of damages.

(E.g., Doc. 1-3, at 9-11.) Plaintiffs’ compensatory damages include

mental anguish, diminution in property value, and loss of use. (Doc.

1-3, at 9-11).

2

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 6
2. Plaintiffs claim to have lost the use of their property (including

front and back yard), and to have suffered “substantial” mental

anguish from “the stench of the sewage.” (Doc. 1-1, at Irrog. 28;

Doc. 1-2.) According to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the issue has been

on-going for “months upon months” (Doc. 1-1, at Irrog. 26) “every

day for over a year” (Doc. 1-2).

3. In his responses to Carrington’s Interrogatories, Plaintiff Mike

Mitchell valued Plaintiffs’ property between $200,000.00-

$250,000.00. (Doc. 1-1, at Irrog. 27.); c.f. Fed. R. Evid. 701; Neff

v. Kehoe, 708 F.2d 639, 643 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that Fed. R.

Evid. 701 permits lay opinion regarding property value).

4. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for costs

associated with the cleanup of the contamination they claim has

occurred. (Doc. 1-1, at Irrog. 25; Doc. 1-2; Doc. 1-3, at 9-11.)

5. Prior to removal, Plaintiffs tendered a two-part settlement demand

to Carrington for either (1) $100,000 cash or (2) $75,000 plus title

to real property next door to Plaintiffs [sic], valued at $41,500.

(Doc. 1-2; Ex. 1.)

Doc. no. 6 (Carrington Mortgage Services, L.L.C.’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Remand), at 1-2.

The Eleventh Circuit has articulated the following analytical framework for district

courts to follow when determining, in the face of a motion to remand, whether a

defendant has met its burden of demonstrating the requisite amount in controversy:

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. If the

jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court

should look to the notice of removal and may require evidence relevant to

the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed.

3

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 6
Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Pretka v.

Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010) (same).

Eleventh Circuit precedent permits district courts to make

“reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable

extrapolations” from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially

apparent that a case is removable. See id. at 754. Put simply, a district

court need not “suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining

whether the face of a complaint . . . establishes the jurisdictional amount.”

See id. at 770 (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 995,

999 (M.D. Ala. 2009)); see also Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319 (11th Cir.

2001) (allowing district courts to consider whether it is “facially apparent”

from a complaint that the amount in controversy is met). Instead, courts

may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining

whether the case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional

requirements.

Roe v. Michelin North America, Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir. 2010)

(emphasis supplied).

Plaintiff’s state-court complaint states that in

early 2015, the underground septic tank on Defendant’s property

malfunctioned in some manner causing feces, urine, and other sewage to

drain onto Plaintiff’s property causing horrible smells, flooding of the land

with waste, diminishing the value of Plaintiff’s property, potentially

affecting the Plaintiffs’ health and the health of the public, and other ill

effects. Plaintiff’s grandchildren cannot play on the property and Plaintiffs

must smell and see the sewage every day.

Doc. no. 1-3 (Complaint), ¶ 9 (emphasis supplied). Defendant foreclosed on the

property in or about November 2015, and “has been aware of the issue” since “on or

4

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 6
about the date of their ownership of the property.”

4 Moreover, the underground septic

tank still was malfunctioning as of February 2016.

5 Although plaintiffs’ complaint does

not specify the amount of damages sought, that pleading describes the following injuries

as having occurred: (1) loss of use of property; (2) diminution in value of property; (3)

cost of remediating the property; and (4) mental anguish.

6

Plaintiffs seek compensatory

and punitive damages.

7

See Holley Equipment Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 821 F.2d

1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating that punitive damages should be considered in

determining the amount in controversy, “unless it is apparent to a legal certainty that such

cannot be recovered”).

8

The court concludes that it is apparent from the face of plaintiffs’ state court

complaint that the potential value oftheir claims exceeds $75,000.

Even if the court is incorrect in that conclusion, plaintiffs’ assessment of the

4 Doc. no. 1-3 (Complaint), ¶¶ 10-11.

5

Id. ¶ 11.

6 See id. ¶¶ 14, 17, 21, 25.

7 See id. ¶¶ 14, 18, 21, 26.

8 Alabama law allows a plaintiff who succeeds on a claim of wantonness to recover punitive

damages. See Ala. Code § 6-11-20(a) (1975) (“Punitive damages may not be awarded in any civil

action, except civil actions for wrongful death pursuant to Sections 6-5-391 and 6-5-410, other than in

a tort action where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant consciously or

deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, or malice with regard to the plaintiff. Nothing

contained in this article is to be construed as creating any claimfor punitive damages which is not now

present under the law of the State of Alabama.”) (emphasis supplied).

5

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 6
property’s fair market value as being somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000,

9

and

the settlement offers proposed by plaintiffs’ counsel of $100,000 or, alternatively,

$75,000 along with legal title to the adjacent property,

10

establish by a preponderance of

the evidence that the requisite amount in controversy has been satisfied.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. The parties are directed

to proceed with discovery in compliance with the Uniform Initial Order entered in this

action.

11

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day ofJuly, 2016.

______________________________

United States District Judge

9 See doc. no. 1-1.

10 See doc. no. 1-2.

11 See doc. no. 2.

6

Case 5:16-cv-00833-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 6