Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00454/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00454-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ETHEL WELLS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv454-WHA

 ) (wo)

HERBERT SPEARS, CLARK BUFORD )

BAIT COMPANY, ) 

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This cause is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. #7), filed on

July 17, 2012.

The Plaintiff, Ethel Wells (“Wells”), originally filed her case in the Circuit Court of

Barbour County, Alabama on February 3, 2012, bringing claims against Herbert Spears and

fictitious defendants. 

Wells filed an Amended Complaint in state court on May 23, 2012, adding Clark Buford

Bait Company as a Defendant. Wells did not claim a specific amount in damages in the

Complaint or Amended Complaint. Wells is a citizen of Alabama, and Clark Buford Bait, Inc. is

incorporated in Tennessee, with its principal place of business in Georgia. Defendant Herbert

Spears is a citizen of Georgia.

Defendant Clark Buford Bait, Inc. removed the case to this court on May 24, 2012, on the

basis of diversity jurisdiction. Wells subsequently filed a Motion to Remand, and attached to it a

Case 2:12-cv-00454-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 5
Second Amended Complaint, which was filed in state court after removal and which states that

the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. 

For reasons to be discussed, the Motion to Remand is due to be GRANTED.

II. REMAND STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

511 U.S. 375 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (1994); Wymbs v.

Republican State Executive Comm., 719 F.2d 1072, 1076 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.

1103 (1984). As such, federal courts only have the power to hear cases that they have been

authorized to hear by the Constitution or the Congress of the United States. See Kokkonen, 511

U.S. at 377. Because federal court jurisdiction is limited, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of

removed cases where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear. See Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

III. DISCUSSION

A federal district court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action in

which only state law claims are alleged if the civil action arises under the federal court's

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The diversity statute confers jurisdiction on

the federal courts in civil actions "between citizens of different states," in which the

jurisdictional amount is met. Id. The parties appear to be in agreement that complete diversity

of citizenship exists in this case.

When an ad damnum clause includes a demand for a specific amount of damages which

is less than the jurisdictional a mount, the defendant is "required to prove to a legal certainty that

plaintiff, if [he or] she prevailed, would not recover below [$75,000.00]." Burns v. Windsor Ins.

Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir.1994). To sustain federal removal jurisdiction based on

2

Case 2:12-cv-00454-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 5
diversity of citizenship in a case in which the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of

damages, the burden is on the defendant to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the

amount in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $75,000.00. See, e.g., Tapscott

v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir.1996). 

Wells represents that the case does not meet the jurisdictional amount, and in support of

her Motion to Remand, attaches a Second Amended Complaint filed after removal. Jurisdiction

must be evaluated at the time the case was removed, however. See Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a

Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “A court's analysis of the amount-in-controversy

requirement focuses on how much is in controversy at the time of removal, not later.” Pretka v.

Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010). Therefore, this court will not

consider the attachment to the Motion to Remand.

Because no specific amount was claimed by Wells at the time of removal, Clark Buford

Bait, Inc.’s burden is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requisite jurisdictional

amount exists. Clark Buford Bait, Inc. argues that because Wells seeks compensatory damages,

including medical expenses, and punitive damages, she seeks more than $75,000. Clark Buford

Bait, Inc. states in its Notice of Removal that Wells has stated that she has incurred medical bills

of $12,000. In response to the Motion to Remand, Clark Buford Bait, Inc. also states that the

liability insurance limits of Clark Buford Bait, Inc. are in excess of $75,000. The monetary

amounts referenced by Clark Buford Bait, Inc., however, are not included in any allegation in the

Complaint or Amended Complaint, and are not supported by any citation to evidence. The court

cannot conclude, therefore, that the removing party has met its burden to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs,

3

Case 2:12-cv-00454-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 3 of 5
exceeds $75,000.00. See Cate v. Service Corp. Intern., 833 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1327 (M.D. Ala.

2011) (stating that factual allegations made by the defendants must be supported, and the

evidence used to do so may be combined with reasonable deductions and inferences);

Richardson v. Hicks, No. 3:09cv436-MHT, 2009 WL 1768158 (M.D. Ala. June 23, 2009)

(finding lack of jurisdictional amount where injuries from automobile collision were alleged to

result in medical bills, but there was no evidence of the amount of those bills). “[R]emoval

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

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, this court concludes that the removing party has failed to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requisite amount was in controversy at the

time of removal. The Motion to Remand, therefore, is due to be GRANTED.1 

A separate Order will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 7thday of August, 2012.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 The court notes that while the Second Amended Complaint filed after the case was

removed, and attached to the Motion to Remand, has no legal effect in deciding this motion, the

representation made by counsel for the Plaintiff as to current value of the case is governed by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff’s counsel should be aware of this after the case is returned to state

court.

4

Case 2:12-cv-00454-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 4 of 5
5

Case 2:12-cv-00454-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 5 of 5