Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00636/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00636-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Doc. No. 4.

2

Doc. No. 6.

3

Doc. No. 2.

4

Doc. No. 1.

5

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JESSICA MAGANA PLAINTIFF

VS. NO. 4:07CV00636 WRW

LEON TATUM and FRED’S

STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand,1 to which Defendants responded.2 This is a

personal injury case that arises from an accident that occurred in Arkansas and involved an

Arkansas resident and Tennessee residents. Plaintiff’s state complaint3

 did not ask for a

specific amount of damages, and Defendant removed the case to this court.4 Plaintiff asks

that this case be remanded because she is asking for damages that are less than the

jurisdictional amount. 

Removal based on diversity requires that the parties be from different states and the

amount in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.5

Case 4:07-cv-00636-BRW Document 11 Filed 10/02/07 Page 1 of 3
6

McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

7

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). 

8

In re Business Men’s Assurance Co. of America, 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993).

9

Gilmer v. Walt Disney Co., 915 F. Supp. 1001 (W.D. Ark. 1996) (citing Burns v.

Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir.1994)) (emphasis added).

10Haynes v. Louisville Ladder Group, LLC, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1067 (E.D. Ark. 2004)

citing Interstate Oil and Supply Co. v. Troutman Oil Co., 334 Ark. 1, 5 (1998) (holding that a

plaintiff who did not demand a specific amount was not prevented from recovering more than the

federal jurisdictional amount); but see Cox v. Vernon, 94 Ark. App. 112, 114 (2006) (refusing to

allow plaintiff in a diversity action to recover over $75,000.00)).

11Interstate Oil and Supply Co., 334 Ark. at 5.

2

The party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts has the burden of

proving the existence of jurisdiction.6

 Therefore, when the case is removed, the burden is on

the defendant, not the plaintiff,7 and all doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.8

Moreover, Plaintiff is in charge of her case and may bar removal by asking for a

specific amount that is less than required for removal. Under such circumstances, the case

should be remanded unless the defendant can prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s

claim exceeds $75,000.00.9

Plaintiff argues that, under Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a demand containing no specified

amount of damages will limit recovery to an amount less than what is required for federal

court jurisdiction. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court’s interpretation of Ark. R. Civ. P.

8(a) and, general principles of federal jurisdiction, prevent this rule from determining federal

jurisdiction.10 In other words, despite the clear wording of this rule, a plaintiff may still

recover damages exceeding $75,000.00 at trial.11 More importantly, state rules do not

Case 4:07-cv-00636-BRW Document 11 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 3
12Gilmer v. Walt Disney Co., 915 F. Supp. 1001, 1006 n.3 (W.D. Ark. 1996).

13Doc. No. 10. 

3

control federal jurisdiction.12 However, Defendants did not carry their burden of showing

the existence of federal jurisdiction.. 

Plaintiff stated “unequivocally” that she will never seek more than $75,000.00 in

damages.13 In view of this, and after resolving all doubts in favor of remand, Plaintiff’s

motion is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Lonoke Circuit Court in Arkansas.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2007.

/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.___________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 4:07-cv-00636-BRW Document 11 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3