Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00804-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. WATSON, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv804-ID

v. ) (WO)

)

COTTON STATES MUT. INS. CO., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Patricia A. Watson’s (“Watson”) renewed motion to

remand, filed September 26, 2006. (Doc. No. 6.) For the reasons to follow, the court finds

that the motion is due to be granted.

Previously in this case, Watson filed a motion to remand, arguing that 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a)’s jurisdictional amount was not satisfied. (Doc. No. 4.) In support of that motion,

Watson filed her affidavit and argued that, based on the attestations therein, Defendants had

not, and could not, show that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional minimum

set forth in § 1332(a). The court, however, denied the motion to remand, finding that Watson’s

affidavit was insufficient to defeat Defendants’ showing that it was more likely than not that, at

the time of removal, Watson was seeking more than $75,000 in damages. (Doc. No. 5); see

Poore v. American- Amicable Life Ins. Co. of Texas, 218 F.3d 1287 (11 Cir. 2000). The th

court, though, observed that Watson could renew her motion if there existed evidence that, at

the time of removal, diversity jurisdiction was lacking. (Doc. No. 5.) Watson now has

Case 2:06-cv-00804-ID-CSC Document 7 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 3
2

renewed her motion to remand, arguing anew that the jurisdictional amount has not been met

and providing a supplemental affidavit in support of this contention. 

In her supplemental affidavit, Watson attests that, although her Complaint seeks an

unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, "at the time of removal, [she] did

not intend to seek more than $74,999.00 in damages." (Watson Aff. (Ex. A to Doc. No. 6)

(emphasis in original).) She further states that she "irrevocably agree[s] that the amount of

damages claimed by [her] in this action is and will forever be no more than $74,999.00,

exclusive of interest and costs," that she "will under no circumstances accept a judgment or

settlement in this case in excess of $74,999.00," and that her "agreement is binding upon [her]

and [her] heirs and cannot be rescinded or revoked under any circumstances, regardless of any

development which may occur during the investigation, discovery, or trial of this action." (Id.) 

Based on Watson's stipulation, the court finds that Watson intended to limit her

recovery to less than the jurisdictional minimum at the time of removal, Poore, 218 F.3d

at 1291, and that she will neither ask for nor accept damages more than $75,000. The court

finds, therefore, that Watson has established that, at the time of removal, the amount in

controversy requested in the Complaint was less than $75,000 and that Defendants have not

met their burden of showing that more than the jurisdictional amount has been sought in this

case. Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11 Cir. 1996). th

In so finding, the court emphasizes that, while it does not call into question the integrity

of Watson's damages demand, should she disregard her demand and pursue or accept damages

in excess of $75,000, then upon application to the court by opposing counsel, an investigation

Case 2:06-cv-00804-ID-CSC Document 7 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 3
3

into the representations of Watson's counsel to this court will be swift in coming and sanctions

will be painful upon arrival. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; M.D. Ala. L.R. 83.1.

Based on the foregoing, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Watson's renewed

motion to remand be and the same is hereby GRANTED, and that this action be and the same

is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to take all steps necessary to

effectuate said remand. 

DONE this 28th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00804-ID-CSC Document 7 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 3