Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00102/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

1

The defendants’ second motion to postpone ruling on the motion to remand pending

action by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, (Doc. 17), is denied for the reasons set

forth in the Court’s order on the defendants’ first such motion. (Doc. 12).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

C&G BOAT WORKS, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0102-WS-B

 )

CHALIN O. PEREZ, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

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

have filed briefs and evidentiary materials in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 13, 16-

18), and the motion is ripe for consideration. After carefully considering the foregoing and other

relevant materials in the file, the Court concludes that the motion to remand is due to be denied.1

The defendants removed this declaratory action on the grounds of diversity of

citizenship. (Doc. 1). It is uncontroverted that the plaintiff is an Alabama citizen and the

defendants all citizens of Louisiana. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2; Doc. 13 at 1 n.1). The complaint seeks

no damages but only a declaration that the parties’ agreement dated August 12, 2002 was

lawfully terminated on August 12, 2003. (Complaint at 2). The issue is whether the amount-incontroversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is satisfied. 

“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is the

monetary value of the object of the litigation from the plaintiff’s perspective.” Federated

Mutual Insurance Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003)(internal

quotes omitted). “In other words, the value of the requested injunctive [or declaratory] relief is

the monetary value of the benefit that would flow to the plaintiff if the injunction [or declaratory

relief] were granted.” Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1077 (11th Cir. 2000).

The plaintiff argues that all it seeks to obtain in this litigation is “peace of mind” and that

Case 1:06-cv-00102-WS-B Document 19 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The plaintiff does complain that the defendants’ evidence was filed seven days after the

deadline imposed by Judge Pittman for opposing the motion to remand. (Doc. 18). The

defendants’ motion for leave to file the evidence out of time, (Doc. 16), is granted, mooting the

plaintiff’s objection. 

-2-

such a benefit is too speculative and immeasurable to satisfy the amount in controversy. (Doc. 2

at 4). The parties’ contract, however, requires the plaintiff to pay the defendants 2% of the gross

billings on all contracts signed by the plaintiff with five companies, including Rigdon Marine. 

(Complaint, Exhibit A). The defendants have introduced evidence that, after August 12, 2003

the plaintiff entered one or more contracts with Rigdon Marine for the construction of vessels

estimated by the plaintiff to cost over $12 million. (Doc. 16, Perez Affidavit & Exhibit A). 

Thus, by prevailing in this lawsuit the plaintiff will save $240,000 or more it would otherwise

have to pay the defendants pursuant to the August 2002 contract. The plaintiff offers no

challenge to the substance of this evidence or its legal effect and presents no evidence of its

own.2

 The defendants’ evidence thus plainly establishes that the value of the litigation from the

plaintiff’s perspective is not speculative or immeasurable and that it satisfies the amount-incontroversy requirement. 

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00102-WS-B Document 19 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2