Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00165/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00165-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HARRIET SLOAN, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0165-WS-B

 )

RIVER BIRCH HOMES, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 12).

On March 5, 2007, defendant River Birch, acting with the consent of co-defendants

Hambone’s Mobile Home Liquidators, Inc. and PFS Corp., removed this action to this District

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. River Birch predicated subject matter

jurisdiction on § 1331, which confers original jurisdiction to district courts over “all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In

particular, River Birch pointed to the Twenty-First Cause of Action, in which plaintiff alleged

that defendants had violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq.

(“MMWA”), by breaching certain written warranties furnished to plaintiff pursuant to the mobile

home sales transaction that is the subject of this lawsuit. The ad damnum clause of that MMWA

cause of action requested entry of judgment against defendants “in an amount less than the sum

or value of $50,000.00 (exclusive of interest and costs).” (Complaint, at 23-24.)

On March 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (doc. 12) for lack of federal

subject matter jurisdiction. This Motion hinges on the MMWA’s explicit exclusion of federal

jurisdiction for MMWA claims in which the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value

of $50,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). Plaintiff contends

that this jurisdictional hurdle is not satisfied here, and that federal jurisdiction is therefore

lacking. Significantly, the Motion to Remand was accompanied by the Affidavit of J. Charles

McCorquodale, in which plaintiff’s counsel averred under penalty of perjury that plaintiff,

Harriet Sloan, “will not seek or accept damages on the claims arising under the Magnuson-Moss

Case 2:07-cv-00165-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 3
1 In weighing motions to remand, courts in this Circuit credit representations of

counsel that their clients will neither seek nor accept recovery exceeding the jurisdictional

amount. See, e.g., Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 808 (11th

Cir. 2003) (crediting plaintiff’s counsel’s representation in motion to remand that plaintiff does

not seek and would not accept damages in excess of jurisdictional amount).

2 In fairness to defendants, all of these companion cases were decided after the

removal of this action to federal court; therefore, River Birch did not have the benefit of those

decisions in weighing its options and assessing its likelihood of success vis a vis removal.

-2-

Warranty Act in excess of the jurisdictional amount.” (McCorquodale Aff., ¶ 5.)1

Where, as here, a plaintiff specifically pleads a damages amount below the jurisdictional

threshold, the Eleventh Circuit has found that such a pleading “deserves deference and a

presumption of truth. We will not assume - unless given reason to do so - that plaintiff’s counsel

has falsely represented, or simply does not appreciate, the value of his client’s case.” Burns v.

Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). If a defendant removes the case to federal

court, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s specific pleading of a sub-jurisdictional minimum damages

amount, then in order to avoid remand that “defendant must prove to a legal certainty that

plaintiff’s claim must exceed” the jurisdictional amount. Id. Thus, to obtain a federal forum, a

removing defendant must establish that “an award below the jurisdictional amount would be

outside the range of permissible awards because the case is clearly worth more than $50,000.” 

Id. at 1096.

In its Response (doc. 14) to the Motion to Remand, River Birch notes that the issues and

arguments implicated by Sloan’s Motion are substantially similar to those in at least nine other

actions that have recently been remanded by judges of this District Court for want of subject

matter jurisdiction.2 River Birch further observes that the McCorquodale Affidavit includes an

“unequivocal limitation of damages in this matter.” (Response, at 2.) On that basis, River Birch

prudently concedes that it “cannot reach its burden of proof with regard to the jurisdictional

amount.” (Id.) This Court agrees with defendant that this action is indistinguishable from the

five actions that the undersigned has recently remanded to state court based on the defendants’

inability to satisfy the “legal certainty” test for establishing the requisite amount in controversy

for a claim under the MMWA that requests relief in an amount less than $50,000. See

Case 2:07-cv-00165-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Carstarphen v. River Birch Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 841737 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2007); Ready v.

River Birch Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 841740 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2007); Hill v. River Birch

Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 858412 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2007); Brown v. Kabco Builders, Inc., 2007

WL 841690 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2007); Holmes v. Kabco Builders, Inc., 2007 WL 841686 (S.D.

Ala. Mar. 15, 2007).

Accordingly, the removing defendants having failed to satisfy their burden of

establishing that federal removal jurisdiction is proper, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 12) is

due to be, and the same hereby is, granted. Because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, this

action is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of Wilcox County, Alabama for further

proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2007.

 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00165-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3