Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00468/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00468-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neal Smith
Plaintiff
Evan Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

1

 It is clearly established in the Eleventh 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, affidavits filed by plaintiffs in cases may be considered in

determining jurisdiction to the extent that they clarify 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.). Such affidavits should

establish that, at the time the complaint was filed, plaintiffs did not seek more than the jurisdictional

amount and that plaintiffs will not accept a jury award for more than the jurisdictional amount. The

court notes that, although not required, some plaintiffs even agree in their affidavits to an irrevocable

cap on damages of $74,999, exclusive of interest and costs. In the case subjudice, the affidavit

submitted by plaintiff Neal Smith satisfies these requirements. (See Doc. # 11). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

NEAL SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:05-cv-468-F

) WO

EVAN WILLIAMS, )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion to Remand filed by the plaintiff on June 7, 2005

(Doc. # 5), the affidavit of plaintiff Neal Smith1 (Doc. # 11), and the Defendant’s response

thereto acknowledging that the case should be remanded (Doc. # 12), it is hereby

Case 3:05-cv-00468-MEF-DRB Document 13 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. # 5) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the

above-styled lawsuit is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Randolph County,

Alabama.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to effectuate the

remand of this case to the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Alabama.

DONE this 23rd day of June, 2005.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00468-MEF-DRB Document 13 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2