Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00898/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00898-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE ADAMSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-898-WKW

 ) [WO]

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM )

CORPORATION, d/b/a )

GLAXOSMITH KLINE (GSK), )

 )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case marks Defendant’s second attempt to establish federal removal

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against it. Before the court is Plaintiff’s

Emergency Motion to Remand Previously Remanded Case (Doc. # 6) back to the

Circuit Court of Randolph County, Alabama. Defendant filed a response to the

motion (Doc. # 7) to which Plaintiff replied (Doc. # 8). After careful consideration

of the arguments of counsel and the relevant law, the court finds that Plaintiff’s

motion is due to be granted. Additionally, Defendant will be required to show cause

why it should not be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred as

a result of this second removal.

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 1 of 10
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“[F]ederal courts have a strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred

upon them by Congress.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716

(1996). However, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Burns v.

Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379 (1994). Thus, with respect to cases

removed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the law of the Eleventh Circuit

favors remand where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear. “[R]emovalstatutes

are construed narrowly; where plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction,

uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.” Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

The removing defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of federal

jurisdiction. Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). With

respect to diversity jurisdiction, a federal court has original jurisdiction over an action

where there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

II. BACKGROUND

A. The December 2010 Case

Defendant’s first attempt at removal occurred eleven months before this

attempt. See Adamson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 3:10-cv-1066 (M.D. Ala.

2

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 2 of 10
filed Dec. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Adamson I) (Watkins, C.J.). Defendant removed

Adamson I on December 15, 2010, from the Circuit Court of Randolph County,

Alabama. (Doc. # 1, Adamson I.) On December 16, 2010, Defendant filed a motion

to stay the case pending transfer of the action to Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”),

MDL No. 1871, In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability

Litigation. (Doc. # 5, Adamson I.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. (Doc. # 9,

Adamson I.) The court granted the motion to remand because “Plaintiff’s demand . . .

[was] for an amount certain that [was] less than the jurisdictional requirement,” and

Defendant “failed to establish the jurisdictional amount to a legal certainty.” (Doc.

# 14, at 2, Adamson I.) The court found that “Plaintiff ha[d] bound himself to

$65,000, and [was] precluded by his counsel’s affidavit and [the] Order from seeking

or recovering in excess thereof.” (Doc. # 14, at 3, Adamson I.) The case was

remanded back to the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Alabama.

B. The October 2011 Case

Defendant has removed this case again on the cusp of the one-year maximum

time for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). In strikingly similar events to its first

attempt, Defendant once again removed this case from the Circuit Court of Randolph

County, Alabama, (Doc. # 1) and then quickly filed a motion to stay the case (Doc.

# 5) pending transfer of the action to MDL No. 1871,In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales

3

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 3 of 10
Practices and Products Liability Litigation. Plaintiff once again filed a motion to

remand (Doc. # 6), which is now before the court, and argues that the jurisdictional

amount in controversy is still not met because Plaintiff is still seeking only $65,000

in damages. (Doc. # 6, at 2.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff, in his deposition taken on October 10, 2011,

admitted that he is seeking more than $225,000 on all his claims. (Doc. # 7, at 2.) 

Defendant pointsto Plaintiff’s deposition testimonywhere he statesthat he isseeking

compensation for the value of six weeks of sick leave and annual leave, (Pl.’s Dep.

13–15 (Doc. # 12, Ex. H)); compensation for his wife taking two weeks off work

without pay, (Pl.’s Dep. 20); compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, (Pl.’s Dep.

21); compensation for loss of life insurance, (Pl.’s Dep. 26–27); restitution for the

amount he paid for Avandia, (Pl.’s Dep. 29); reimbursement of medical expenses,

(Pl.’s Dep. 30–33); compensation for physical and psychological injuries, (Pl.’s Dep.

34–35); and lost wages from March 31, 2009, to the time he would be entitled to

Social Security retirement benefits, (Pl.’s Dep. 36–37). Defendant has calculated the

approximate value for recovery of lost wages at $117,096, the value of medical

expenses at $34,000, compensation for sick and annual leave at $3,444, and

restitution for Plaintiff’s purchase of Avandia at $5,868. (Doc. # 7, at 3.) 

Additionally, Defendant claims that Plaintiffis seeking $65,000 as compensation only

4

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 4 of 10
for his physical and psychological injuries. (Doc. # 7, at 3–5.) This total is $225,408

and does not include compensation for Plaintiff’s wife taking unpaid leave and for

loss of life insurance. 

In his motion to remand, Plaintiff reaffirms that “[t]he amount in controversy

. . . is $65,000. That is what was plead by [] Plaintiff.” (Doc. # 6, at 5.) He further

makes clear that he intentionally “limited his claim to $65,000.” (Doc. # 6, at 5.) 

Plaintiff reiterated in his reply that while he may be entitled to more damages, he is

seeking only $65,000 on all claims. (Doc. # 8, at 3–4.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Removal

Defendant removed this case under the second paragraph of § 1446(b), which

allows a defendant to remove a case that was initially not removable. If, as here, the

case was “not removable” from the initial pleading, a defendant may later file, under

paragraph two of § 1446(b), a notice of removal “after receipt by the defendant . . .

of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may

first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable . . . .” §

1446(b).

Here, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s deposition is the “other paper”

received by Defendant by which it “first ascertain[ed]” that this case was removable. 

5

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 5 of 10
The sole issue is whether Defendant could have “first ascertain[ed]” from Plaintiff’s

deposition testimony that the damages exceeded $75,000, so as to satisfy § 1332(a)’s

amount in controversy requirement.

Where as here the complaint contains a limitation establishing that the amount

in controversy falls below the jurisdictional minimum, the removing party “must

prove to a legal certainty” that the plaintiff’s claims “must exceed” the jurisdictional

amount. Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095. “If [the plaintiff] does not desire to try his case in

the federal court he may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the

jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the defendant

cannot remove.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294

(1938). A plaintiff’s claim for damages, “when it is specific and in a pleading signed

by a lawyer, deserves deference and a presumption of truth.” Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

Hence, the removing defendant’s burden is a “heavy one,” but not an

impossible one. Id. For instance, under the legal certainty test, the removing

defendant “could remain in federal court if he showed that, if plaintiff prevails on

liability, an award below the jurisdictional amount would be outside the range of

permissible awards because the case is clearly worth more than [the jurisdictional

amount].” Id. at 1096.

6

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 6 of 10
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony “clearly show[s] that

Plaintiff has abandoned any intention to limit himself to $65,000 in damages.” (Doc.

# 7, at 3.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicatesthat the

limitation of $65,000 only applies to Plaintiff’s claims for physical and psychological

injuries and that Plaintiff is seeking more than $225,000 in total damages on all his

claims. After testifying to his other claims for damages, counsel for Defendant asked

Plaintiff, “What amount are you claiming for the pain and suffering?” (Pl.’s Dep. 35.) 

Plaintiff responded, “That’s the whole deal, $65,000 today.” (Pl.’s Dep. 35.)

Plaintiff has repeatedly asserted that his $65,000 damageslimitation applies to

all claims, not simply to his claims for physical and psychological injuries. Plaintiff

asserts that his deposition testimony of “That’s the whole deal” applies to all his

claims, not just to damages for physical and psychological injuries. (Doc. # 8, at 3.)

Plaintiff’s limitation on damages filed in the state court was “subject to the

requirements of Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.,

483 F.3d 1184, 1220 (11th Cir. 2007). Similarly, counsel’s representations in his

pleadings filed in this court in support of the motion to remand are subject to the

strictures of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Federated Mut.

Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC., 329 F.3d 805, 808 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2003)

(reciting that plaintiff’s attorneys were officers of the court and “subject to sanctions

7

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 7 of 10
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for making a representation to the court for

an improper purpose”). Counsel for Plaintiff expressly represents that his client

“would state to the jury that his claim is for $65,000.00, ‘total,’” and that his client

“only asks for a total of everything at $65,000.” (Doc. # 8, at 1, 3.) The court finds

that counsel’s representations are consistent with the complaint’s provisions and that

there is nothing in the record indicating that counsel’s representations are “presented

for any improper purpose” or otherwise are made in bad faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

Defendant may be correct that Plaintiff, by his testimony, would be entitled to

more than $65,000. Plaintiff does not deny this. However, from the filing of his

complaint, Plaintiff has agreed to limit the amount of damages that he will claim. 

That limitation has been and still is $65,000. Plaintiff’s testimony does not contradict

that he is seeking $65,000 in damages total. A plaintiff may choose to sue for less 1

than the jurisdictional amount if he or she does not wish to be in federal court, and

Plaintiff has done so in this case. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 294. 

Defendant cannot meet its heavy burden ofshowing to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s

 Defendant relies on Messina v. Chanel, Inc., No. 10-24518-CI, 2011 WL 2610521 1

(S.D. Fla. July 1, 2011), as authority. In that case, the district court found the defendant had

shown to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was more than $75,000 where the

plaintiff had “admitted that she [was] seeking lost wages ‘easily in the six figures,’” and the

defendant had calculated back pay in the six figure range. Id. at *1. Here, Plaintiff has not

expressly admitted that he is seeking lost wages above the amount in controversy and has

continued to maintain that he is seeking $65,000 in damages and would accept that amount as a

settlement. (Doc. # 6, at 5.)

8

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 8 of 10
claims “must exceed” the jurisdictional limit where Plaintiff has continuously

maintained his $65,000 limitation on damages. See Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

B. Costs and Attorney’s Fees

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order remanding the case [to state court] may

require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees,

incurred as a result of the removal.” The Supreme Court in Martin v. Franklin

Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005), explained:

[T]he standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonableness of

the removal. Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award

attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked

an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely, when

an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied. In

applying this rule, district courts retain discretion to consider whether

unusual circumstances warrant a departure from the rule in a given case. 

For instance, a plaintiff’s delay in seeking remand or failure to disclose

facts necessary to determine jurisdiction may affect the decision to

award attorney’s fees. When a court exercises its discretion in this

manner, however, its reasons for departing from the general rule should

be “faithful to the purposes” of awarding fees under § 1447(c).

Id. at 141 (internal citations omitted).

Defendant will be ordered to show cause why Plaintiff should not be awarded

costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the removal, pursuant to § 1447(c).

9

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 9 of 10
IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 6) is

GRANTED, and that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Randolph

County, Alabama, pursuant to § 1447(c). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

take appropriate steps to effectuate the remand.

It is further ORDERED that on or before January 20, 2012, Defendant shall

show cause why it should not be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees

incurred as a result of the removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

DONE this 27th day of December, 2011.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

Case 3:11-cv-00898-WKW-WC Document 9 Filed 12/27/11 Page 10 of 10