Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00907/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00907-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 23:134 P.I.- Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD NEAL THOMPSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-907-MEF

 ) (WO-NOT FOR PUBLICATION)

ESTATE OF VERNELL BRIAN )

MORRIS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause, which was removed from state court to federal court based on diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, is now before the Court on plaintiff's Motion to

Remand (Doc. #6) filed on October 18, 2006. The Court has carefully considered the

submissions in support of and in opposition to that motion, as well as the relevant legal

precedents. The plaintiff contends that the amount in controversy in this lawsuit is not

sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The Court agrees. For that reason, the motion is due to be GRANTED. 

Defendants have failed to "prove to a legal certainty" that the plaintiff's claims exceed

$75,000, as they are required to do. See, e.g., Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095

(11th Cir. 1994). The Court is not persuaded that the damages sought in each count of the

plaintiff's Complaint can be aggregated to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.

This is especially true where, as here, the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel have submitted

Case 3:06-cv-00907-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 2
 In assessing whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, this Court must determine 1

whether subject matter jurisdiction existed at the time of the removal. See, e.g., Poore v.

American-Amicable Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 218 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2000);

Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional facts

that support removal must be judged at the time of the removal, and any post petition

affidavits are allowable only if relevant to that period of time); Moss v. Voyager Ins. Cos.,

43 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1303 (M.D. Ala. 1999). It is clearly established in this circuit that the

district court may “consider post-removal evidence” in determining the propriety of removal.

Sierminski, 216 F.3d at 949. Under Sierminski, a plaintiff’s affidavit may be considered in

determining jurisdiction to the extent that it clarifies the complaint by identifying that the

amount in controversy was not in excess of $75,000.00 at the time the case was removed and

will not be in excess of $75,000.00 in the future. See Moss, 43 F. Supp. 2d at 1303-1304

(because plaintiff had “submitted a binding Stipulation in which she promised to neither seek

nor accept damages in excess of $75,000,” the defendants failed to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that damages would exceed $75,000.). 

2

affidavits clarifying the amount in controversy at the relevant times. Accordingly, because 1

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Remand (Doc. # 6) is GRANTED.

2. This cause is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Macon County,

Alabama. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take all steps necessary to effect this

remand and to close this case.

DONE this 22nd day of December, 2006.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00907-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2