Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03024/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mentor Corporation
Defendant
Mentor Minnesota
Defendant
Ralph Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

RALPH WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

vs. Case No. 06-3024

MENTOR CORPORATION and

MENTOR MINNESOTA DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

On this 4 day of August, 2006, comes on to be considered th

plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4). The Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds that the motion should be GRANTED. The

Court finds and orders as follows with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff initiated this action in state court on March

17, 2006, asserting product liability claims arising out of

injuries he incurred due to an allegedly defective penile

prosthesis manufactured and distributed by defendants. Plaintiff

sought damages for permanent partial impairment, loss of ability to

earn in the future, scars and disfigurement, and past and future

medical expenses, pain and suffering, and mental anguish. In his

complaint, plaintiff requested “judgment against the Defendants for

a sum of $75,000.00 ... as of the time of the filing of this

Complaint.” (Doc. 1 Ex. 4 ¶ 29.) 

2. On May 11, 2006, defendants removed the action to this

court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.)

Defendants asserted that plaintiff was actually seeking damages in

excess of the $75,000.00 federal jurisdictional requisite, as 

Case 3:06-cv-03024-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

evidenced by a letter from plaintiff’s counsel dated April 12,

2006. In this letter, plaintiff’s counsel stated:

We will, if you are seriously interested in settlement,

give you the medical records and the medical bills

related to the claim, but I do want to correct your

assertion that the damages “will remain under SeventyFive Thousand Dollars ($75,000).” I cannot agree to

that. We are suing for less than $75,000 now, but there

may be changes in that in the future. I cannot give you

an unqualified assurance that we will always seek damages

under $75,000.

(Doc. 1 Ex. 2.)

 

3. Plaintiff moves to remand the action, asserting that

defendants’ notice of removal is untimely and that, in any event,

defendant has not established that plaintiff is seeking damages in

excess of the jurisdictional amount. Plaintiff notes that prior to

removing the action, defendants submitted requests for admission,

asking plaintiff to admit that his damages did not exceed

$75,000.00. In response to these requests, plaintiff requested

that the state court issue a protective order, asserting that the

requests for admission were “not proper at this early stage in the

litigation, since the damages are continuing and there is no way

for the Plaintiff to determine whether his damages will be below,

at or above $75,000.00.” (Doc. 4 ¶ 8.)

4. The removal statute provides:

If the case stated by the initial pleading is not

removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty

days after receipt by the defendant ... 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, except that a case may not be removed

Case 3:06-cv-03024-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

on the basis of [diversity] jurisdiction ... more than 1

year after commencement of the action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (emphasis added).

5. Defendants assert that the notice of removal was timely,

as it was filed within 30 days of plaintiff’s counsel’s letter

stating that he could not guarantee that plaintiff would not seek

damages in excess of $75,000.00 in the future. The Court agrees

that this letter may constitute an “other paper” establishing the

jurisdictional amount and will therefore construe the notice of

removal as timely.

6. The Court next addresses whether defendants have in fact

established that plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the

jurisdictional amount. Where, as here, the complaint alleges

damages under the jurisdictional minimum, the removing party must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See In re Minnesota Mut. Life Ins.

Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 346 F.3d 830, 834 (8 Cir. 2003). th

Defendants assert that it is apparent plaintiff is actually

seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00. According to defendants,

plaintiff is simply attempting to deny the defendants their right

to remove this action to federal court by waiting to amend his

complaint to increase his claim for damages until after one year

has passed from the filing of the complaint. 

While the Court is sympathetic to defendants’ concerns, it

cannot assume jurisdiction over this action based on defendants’

Case 3:06-cv-03024-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

suspicion that plaintiff will eventually amend his complaint to

seek damages exceeding $75,000.00. The Court notes that there are

protections available to address defendants’ concerns. 

There is no bar on multiple attempts to remove civil actions.

See Benson v. SI Handling Systems, Inc., 188 F.3d 780, 783 (7th

Cir. 1999). Thus, once the state court rules on plaintiff’s

request for a protective order, if discovery verifies that

plaintiff is seeking in excess of the federal jurisdictional

minimum, defendant may file another notice of removal. Defendant

may also file another notice of removal if plaintiff does in fact

amend his complaint to seek damages exceeding $75,000.00. Of

course, as defendants noted, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), if

plaintiff amends his complaint more than a year after he commenced

the action, defendant would be unable to remove the action to

federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. However, defendants

have a remedy to this potential scenario in state court. Under

Rule 15(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants may

move to strike the amended complaint on the grounds of prejudice.

7. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

(Doc. 4) is GRANTED and this case is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit

Court of Searcy County, Arkansas. 

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-03024-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

Plaintiff’s Motion to Suspend Requirements of Scheduling Order

Until the Court Rules on the Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) is DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03024-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/04/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>