Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00100/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00100-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Doyle
Defendant
Roslin Mathena
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROSLIN MATHENA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0100-WS-C

 )

WILLIAM DOYLE, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its sua sponte review of its subject matter

jurisdiction. The defendant has submitted evidentiary materials in response to the Court’s

inquiry, (Doc. 8), and the plaintiff declined the opportunity to challenge the defendant’s

evidence or present any of her own. (Doc. 6). 

The complaint alleges that the defendant negligently or wantonly operated a motor

vehicle, causing a collision with the vehicle driven by the plaintiff. The complaint seeks

damages in the form of past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and

suffering, lost time from employment, and punitive damages. The complaint seeks

damages in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limit of the state court ($10,000), but

does not otherwise articulate an amount demanded. (Doc. 1, Exhibit A). 

“[W]e hold that where a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in

state court, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the

amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the $[75],000 jurisdictional

requirement.” Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996),

overruled on other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Because the plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages, the Tapscott standard

applies here. Under Tapscott, a defendant must show that, if the plaintiff prevails on

Case 1:08-cv-00100-WS-C Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 4
1

 E.g., Hitch v. Laws, 2000 WL 1005888 at *2 (S.D. Ala. 2000)(“Defendants can

discharge the burden ‘by presenting sufficient evidence that a verdict rendered in favor of

[plaintiffs] would exceed $75,000.’”) (quoting Holman v. Montage Group, 79 F. Supp. 2d

1328, 1330 (S.D. Ala. 1999); accord Lowe’s OK’d Used Cars, Inc. v. Acceptance

Insurance Co., 995 F. Supp. 1388, 1393 (M.D. Ala. 1998)(“In a diversity action where

the plaintiff has not made a specific request for damages, the ultimate question the court

addresses is whether a defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that

should the plaintiff prevail on a particular claim, the plaintiff, more likely than not, will

recover in excess of the federal jurisdictional prerequisite.”).

-2-

liability, it will more likely than not be awarded over $75,000.1

“When the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from

state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. If the jurisdictional amount is not

facially apparent from the complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and

may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was

removed.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). 

The amount in controversy is not apparent from the face of the complaint, because

there is no way to determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has been injured so

badly as to make an award of over $75,000 more likely than not. Cf. Williams, 269 F.3d

at 1318, 1320 (allegations that the plaintiff tripped over a curb and suffered permanent

physical and mental injuries, that she incurred substantial medical expenses, that she

suffered lost wages, that she experienced a diminished earning capacity, and that she

would continue to suffer these damages in the future, along with a demand for both

compensatory and punitive damages, did not render it facially apparent that the amount in

controversy exceeded $75,000). As noted in the Court’s previous order, (Doc. 6 at 2-3),

the notice of removal does not supply the deficiency. 

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the third step of the Williams analysis. The

defendant has presented evidence that, prior to filing suit, the plaintiff claimed that the

collision caused her to lose one of the twin fetuses she was carrying. The evidence

Case 1:08-cv-00100-WS-C Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 4
2

It appears that the defendant was attempting to quantify or describe the plaintiff’s

medical expenses, but the testimony ends abruptly mid-sentence. (Id., Hannon Affidavit

at 1).

3

Golden v. Dodge-Markham Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1364-65 (M.D. Fla. 1998);

Standridge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 252, 256-57 (N.D. Ga. 1996); cf.

Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Nobles, 928 F. Supp. 1096, 1098 (M.D. Ala.

1996) (a settlement demand in excess of the jurisdictional amount did not show to a legal

certainty that the counter-plaintiff would recover in excess of the jurisdictional amount).

4

Because the complaint is not brought on behalf of the fetus, only damages to the

mother may be considered. 

-3-

further reflects that she demanded $100,000 from the defendant. (Doc. 8, Nystrom

Affidavit).2

“While [a] settlement offer, by itself, may not be determinative, it counts for

something.” Burns v. Windsor Insurance Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1994). What

it counts for depends on the circumstances. Settlement offers commonly reflect puffing

and posturing, and such a settlement offer is entitled to little weight in measuring the

preponderance of the evidence.3

 On the other hand, settlement offers that provide

“specific information ... to support [the plaintiff’s] claim for damages” suggest the

plaintiff is “offering a reasonable assessment of the value of [her] claim” and are entitled

to more weight. Golden Apple Management Co. v. Geac Computers, Inc., 990 F. Supp.

1364, 1368 (M.D. Ala. 1998); accord Hardy v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 2007 WL

1889896 at *6 n.11 (S.D. Ala. 2007). 

Here, the plaintiff supported her $100,000 settlement demand by citing the loss of

her child in utero, so the demand may be considered a reasonable assessment of the

damages the plaintiff seeks. Moreover, losing an unborn child in an automobile accident

is an event that would predictably cause substantial mental anguish to the mother.4

 The

trouble is that the defendant provides no authority for the proposition that an injured

mother may legally recover mental anguish damages experienced, not in consequence of

her own injury, but in consequence of the injury experienced by the child. See Boyd v.

Case 1:08-cv-00100-WS-C Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 4
-4-

Homes of Legend, Inc., 188 F.3d 1294, 1298, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999) (where punitive

damages as a matter of law could not be awarded, the plaintiff’s demand for them could

not be considered in determining the amount in controversy in a removed action).

The Court will provide the defendant one final opportunity to carry its burden of

demonstrating the propriety of removal. The defendant is ordered to file and serve, on or

before March 21, 2008, any additional briefing and/or evidentiary materials on which it

relies to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The plaintiff is

ordered to file and serve any response on or before March 28, 2008. The Court will take

under submission the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction on March 28, 2008.

 DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2008.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00100-WS-C Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 Page 4 of 4