2009 WL 1938787 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. 5], in which Plaintiff contends that the amount in controversy in the present case does not exceed the minimum required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and that this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant filed a timely response [Doc. 8]. No reply was filed. Because Defendant has carried its burden of proving that, if Plaintiff prevails, her damages will “more likely than not” exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.
The present action arises from Plaintiff Zelma Troupe's slip and fall on premises owned and operated by Defendant C & S Wholesale Grocers, doing business as Piggly Wiggly, and was originally filed in the State Court of Bibb County, Georgia. In the complaint filed in state court, Plaintiff asserts that she suffered “severe physical injuries” and “excruciating and severe physical distress” as a result of Defendant's negligent inspection and maintenance of its premises. She seeks damages for medical expenses in an amount “in excess of $13,637.00” and prays for an additional award of “all damages allowed under Georgia law including, but not limited to, recovery for special and general damages, including pain and suffering, both mental and physical, in the amount to be proven at the time of trial.” Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages, the cost of litigation, and “such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.”
Upon review of the complaint, Defendant filed a timely answer and a notice of removal to this Court. Plaintiff then filed the present motion seeking remand and an award of just costs, actual expenses, and attorney fees incurred.
Any action initially brought in state court may be removed if “the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). One category of civil actions with such original jurisdiction is those between “citizens of different states” where the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Pease v. Medtronic, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 1998). At issue here is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
The burden of proving any jurisdictional fact rests upon the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts; thus, in this case, Defendant bears the burden of establishing that the requisite jurisdictional amount has been met. See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). This burden may be a heavy one. The Eleventh Circuit has held that, when a plaintiff makes a specific demand for judgment for less than the jurisdictional amount, the defendant is required to prove to “a legal certainty” that the amount in controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1994). Under that standard, a defendant may remain in federal court only if it shows that the case is clearly worth more than the jurisdictional threshold.
Alternatively, where a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing defendant need only prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1357. Thus, if the damages are unspecified in the complaint, the defendant's burden is only to prove that the actual damages will “more likely than not” exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
Here, Defendant claims to fall within the second, lesser burden, and the Court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint identifies a specific amount of damages—$13,637.00—but that amount refers only to medical expenses and is pled as being “in excess of” that figure. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of unspecified punitive damages and other “damages allowed under Georgia law,” including pain and suffering “to be proven at the time of trial.” Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's damages are unspecified and that Defendant need only prove that, if Plaintiff prevails, her damages will “more likely than not” exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
Generally, when a complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). If the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent, “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.” Id.
The jurisdictional amount may be apparent on the face of the complaint if the language clearly alleges extensive damages such as long-term medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of wages and earning capacity, permanent disability and disfigurement, or other serious injuries. See id. at 1320. Here, however, the amount in controversy is not facially apparent from the complaint alone: the complaint asserts only “severe physical injuries” and medical expenses “in excess of $13,637.00,” together with a general prayer for other damages to be proven at trial. There is nothing on the face of the complaint that clearly indicates Plaintiff will seek recovery for long-term medical expenses, permanent disability or disfigurement, or loss of wages or diminished earning capacity.
Defendant's notice of removal and the medical records attached to it, however, provide additional information about the extent of Plaintiff's injuries. The records describe lower back and leg pain, detail efforts at pain management (including physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and spinal blocks), and show that Plaintiff's pain continued even a year after the alleged incident. The Court may consider such evidence when assessing the amount in controversy. See Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319 (court may consider evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal).
According to the medical records, Plaintiff fell on her left hip and back in Defendant's store and the incident likely aggravated a pre-existing back injury. The records indicate Plaintiff complained of severe, unrelenting pain—often rated 8, 9, or 10 on a 10-point scale—that could not be controlled with medication and persisted more than a year after the fall. The records further show that Plaintiff may still be incurring medical expenses for ongoing pain management. Plaintiff reported that she lives alone, is self-employed, and operates a house cleaning service. She told her physicians that lifting, bending, stooping, and prolonged standing—all required by her work—exacerbated her pain, that she reduced the number of houses she could clean because of her back condition, and that she discontinued personal activities such as exercising. If proven, these assertions suggest potential recovery for long-term medical expenses, loss of wages and earning capacity, mental and physical pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in addition to the specified medical expenses above $13,637.00 and a claim for punitive damages.
Given this additional information, the Court concludes that Defendant has satisfied its burden of establishing that the special, general, and punitive damages in this case, if proven, will more likely than not exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. See Williams, 269 F.3d at 1320. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.