Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_16-cv-00606/USCOURTS-alsd-2_16-cv-00606-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN B. SHELTON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 16-0606-WS-C

 )

CLINT RUFFIN, JR., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend 

the complaint. (Doc. 12). The defendant declined the opportunity to object, (Doc. 

13), and the motion is ripe for resolution. Accordingly, the motion is granted. 

The plaintiff is ordered to file and serve his proposed amended complaint, (Doc. 

12-1), on or before April 4, 2017.

1

 

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2017.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The plaintiff appears to believe that, once this motion is granted and the 

amended complaint filed, he will be able to achieve remand to state court. He is 

mistaken. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction depends on the complaint as it 

exists at the time of removal, not later, and the Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to 

remand establishes that subject matter jurisdiction existed at the critical time. The 

amended complaint does not reduce the amount in controversy below $75,000 (it merely 

omits the explicit demand for more than $75,000), but even if it did so, “post-removal 

amendments to the complaint to reduce the damages claimed ... do not oust the district 

court’s jurisdiction.” Nelson v. Whirlpool Corp., 727 F. Supp.2d 1294, 1301 (S.D. Ala. 

2010) (internal quotes omitted). The plaintiff’s contrary reading of Section 1447(c) is 

foreclosed by binding precedent. Poore v. American-Amicable Life Insurance Co., 218 

F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds, Alvarez v. 

Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 (11th Cir. 2007); accord PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE 

USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 2016). 

Case 2:16-cv-00606-WS-C Document 16 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 1