Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00446/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00446-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

While the plaintiff did allege that one of the defendants, James Hill, was, like plaintiff, a 1

resident of Barbour County, Alabama, it now appears undisputed that Hill is a resident of Columbus,

Georgia. Accordingly, it is undisputed that plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama and all defendants are

citizens of states other than Alabama for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL THORNTON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-446-MEF

 )

WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., et al., ) (WO-Not Recommended for Publication)

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 14, 2006, the plaintiff filed the civil complaint in the Circuit Court of

Barbour County, Alabama, seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive

damages. (Doc. # 1, Compl.). On of the defendants, Waffle House, Inc.(“Waffle House”),

removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). (Doc. 1

# 1). This cause is now before the court on the Plaintiff’s Petition to Remand Case to State

Court (Doc. # 4).

On July 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Petition to Remand Case to State Court

supported by an affidavit from plaintiff’s counsel stating that “no more than $75,000 in

damages will be sought.” (Doc. # 4 at p. 3. After Waffle House filed its opposition to the

motion to remand arguing, inter alia, that the affidavit from plaintiff’s counsel failed to

constitute a proper basis for remand, the plaintiff himself submitted an affidavit declaring

Case 2:06-cv-00446-MEF-DRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 3
2

that “the amount in controversy does not exceed $74,999.00, including compensatory and

punitive damages” and that “under no circumstances [would he] seek nor accept more than

$74,999.00, exclusive of interest and costs, even if the verdict exceeds that amount.” (Doc.

# 8-2). On August 1, 2006, Waffle House filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s petition

arguing that the plaintiff’s affidavits cannot divest this court of jurisdiction by post-removal

efforts to modify the amount in controversy. (Doc. # 9). Hence, Waffle House seeks denial

of the Plaintiff’s Petition to Remand Case to State Court.

It is clearly established in this circuit that the district court may “consider postremoval evidence” in determining the propriety of removal. Sierminski v. Transouth Fin.

Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000). However, “‘the 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.’” Id. (quoting Allen v R&H Oil Co., 63 F.3d

1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added)). Under Sierminski, the affidavits filed by the

plaintiff in the instant case 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 at the time the case was removed and will not be in excess of $75,000 in the future.

See Moss v. Voyager Ins. Cos., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1303-1304 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (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.). Here, the affidavits fail to make such

Case 2:06-cv-00446-MEF-DRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 3
 See St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294-294 (1938). 2

 The court agrees that only the affidavit from the plaintiff is relevant to this inquiry. The 3

affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel does not alone suffice. 

3

clarification. Specifically, the affidavits do not establish that, at the time the complaint was

filed, plaintiff did not seek more than the jurisdictional amount and that plaintiff will not

accept a jury award for more than the jurisdictional amount. As a result, because the plaintiff

has not established that the amount in controversy sought in the complaint is $74,999

(exclusive of interest and costs) and, as the defendant correctly asserted, a plaintiff cannot

reduce his claim after removal to defeat federal court jurisdiction, the court finds that 2

plaintiff’s affidavits are insufficient to warrant remand. 

3

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Petition to Remand Case to State Court, plaintiff’s

affidavit and the Waffle House’s response, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s Petition to Remand Case to State Court (Doc. # 4) is DENIED

with leave to re-file.

2. If the plaintiff wishes to file another motion to remand accompanied by an

affidavit that satisfy the requirements under Sierminski and Moss, he shall do

so on or before August 11, 2006. Any response to said motion shall be filed

within five days of the filing of the motion, if any.

DONE this the 2 day of August, 2006. nd

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00446-MEF-DRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3