Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00122/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

1

 E.g., Hitch v. Laws, 2000 WL 1005888 at *2 (S.D. Ala. 2000)(“Defendants can

discharge the burden ‘by presenting sufficient evidence that a verdict rendered in favor of

[plaintiffs] would exceed $75,000.’”)(quoting Holman v. Montage Group, 79 F. Supp. 2d

1328, 1330 (S.D. Ala. 1999); accord Lowe’s OK’d Used Cars, Inc. v. Acceptance

Insurance Co., 995 F. Supp. 1388, 1393 (M.D. Ala. 1998)(“In a diversity action where

the plaintiff has not made a specific request for damages, the ultimate question the court

addresses is whether a defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that

should the plaintiff prevail on a particular claim, the plaintiff, more likely than not, will

recover in excess of the federal jurisdictional prerequisite.”).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WALTER CHARLESTON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0122-WS-M

 )

BABER’S INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. 2). The

defendants have filed a response, (Doc. 6), and the motion is ripe for resolution.

The only basis for the motion to remand is that the amount in controversy does not

exceed $75,000. “[W]e hold that where 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 $[75],000

jurisdictional requirement.” Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357

(11th Cir. 1996), overruled on other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069

(11th Cir. 2000). Because the plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages, the

Tapscott standard applies here. Under Tapscott, a defendant must show that, if the

plaintiff prevails on liability, it will more likely than not be awarded over $75,000.1

Case 2:07-cv-00122-WS-M Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

The complaint alleges that the individual defendant, while acting as the agent of

the corporate defendant, collided with a power pole and caused “extensive damage” to the

plaintiff’s commercial property. The complaint alleges damage to equipment, fixtures

and supplies; repair expenses; loss of use, profit and business opportunity; and other,

unspecified damages. The complaint seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. 

(Doc. 1, Exhibit A).

The notice of removal posits that, given the multiple categories of damages

claimed in the complaint, it is “nearly certain” that any verdict for the plaintiff would

exceed the jurisdictional amount. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 7). It is certainly possible that the

plaintiff sustained damages above $75,000, but the mere fact that he claims several types

of compensatory damages is not evidence that the amounts involved are sufficient to

support this Court’s jurisdiction. Nor, absent evidence indicating the egregiousness of the

defendants’ conduct, may the Court assume that an award of punitive damages would be

of sufficient magnitude to offset the deficiency. 

The defendants’ position is further weakened by the motion to remand, in which

the plaintiff discloses that the highest settlement demand he made before filing suit was

$45,000. (Doc. 2 at 2, ¶ 3). The defendants do not deny the accuracy of this

representation, nor do they suggest that the settlement demand underestimated the value

of the case by almost 70%.

Finally, the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit asserting that it was not his

intention when filing his complaint to seek over $75,000. Although “the district court

must determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal[, and]

events occurring after removal which may reduce the damages recoverable below the

amount in controversy requirement do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction,” Poore v.

American-Amicable Life Insurance Co., 218 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2000), the

Court determines that the affidavit is not an improper, post-removal attempt to reduce the

amount in controversy but a proper clarification of the amount in controversy as it existed

Case 2:07-cv-00122-WS-M Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 3
2

The Court declines the defendants’ invitation to “fin[d], upon joint stipulation of

the parties, that the damages claimed by the Plaintiff in said action shall not exceed

$74,499.00,” (Doc. 6 at 2), because the motion to remand is due to be granted

irrespective of the stipulation.

-3-

at the time of removal.

The defendants admit that they are “without evidence to contradict the stipulated

damages asserted by the Plaintiff ....” (Doc. 6 at 2, ¶ 4). They correctly concede thereby

that they cannot meet their burden of proof concerning the amount in controversy.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to remand is granted. This action is

remanded to the Circuit Court of Marengo County.2

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00122-WS-M Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 3