Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00250/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00250-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BUFORD FLOWERS, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0250-WS-M

 )

PRIORITY HEALTHCARE )

PHARMACY, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. 4). The

parties have submitted briefs and other materials in support of their respective positions,

(Docs. 9, 15), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the

foregoing and other relevant material in the file, the Court concludes that the motion to

remand is due to be granted. 

The plaintiffs filed this action in state court, alleging various state-law claims. The

complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. The

defendants removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship. They did not file any

evidence concerning the amount in controversy, but stated that, “[b]ased on the injuries

alleged and the fact that each Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, it is

clear from the face of the Complaint that each Plaintiff seeks damages greater than

$75,000.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 13). 

Along with their motion to remand, the plaintiffs filed affidavits declaring that no

plaintiff is seeking, or will seek, in excess of the jurisdictional amount. (Doc. 4,

Exhibits). The defendants responded that the affidavits were insufficient because they did

not bind the plaintiffs to refuse a higher amount should the jury award it. The defendants

stated that the affidavits “as they currently stand” were not effective and that, “[u]nless

Case 1:07-cv-00250-WS-M Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 3
1

The complaint does not on its face establish the amount in controversy, and the

defendants are prohibited from conducting discovery in federal court to flesh out the

amount in controversy once the plaintiff moves to remand. Lowery v. Alabama Power

Co., 2007 WL 1062769 at *17-20 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, even had the plaintiffs not filed

their affidavits, remand would have been required. Id. Because the plaintiffs did file

-2-

and until Plaintiffs cure this defect,” the motion to remand should be denied. (Doc. 9 at 2,

3). In reply, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits making precisely the binding stipulation

the defendants identified as satisfactory. (Doc. 15, Exhibits).

“[T]he district court must determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction at

the time of removal. [footnote omitted] That is, 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); accord Leonard v. Enterprise Rent A Car, 279

F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (“If jurisdiction was proper at that date [the date of

removal], subsequent events, even the loss of the required amount in controversy, will not

operate to divest the court of jurisdiction.”). The Court agrees with the defendants, (Doc.

9 at 2), that the plaintiffs’ affidavits do not reduce the amount in controversy following

removal but merely clarify the amount that was in controversy at the time of removal.

“[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. Because the only evidence of the amount in controversy is the plaintiffs’

affidavits, the preponderance of the evidence necessarily shows that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000. Accordingly, remand would be required even had

the defendants not been satisfied with the affidavits.1

Case 1:07-cv-00250-WS-M Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 3
these affidavits, and did so for the purpose of securing remand, they remain bound by

them in state court. 

-3-

For the reasons set forth above, this case is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court

of Mobile County.

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

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00250-WS-M Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3