Opinion
No. 1:00CV465-D-A.
January 30, 2001.
OPINION
Presently before the court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand this matter to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi. Upon due consideration, the court finds that the motion should be granted and this cause remanded to state court for ultimate resolution.
A. Factual Background
The Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi, on July 5, 2000, asserting state law claims against the Defendants for wrongful termination and conversion. The Defendants removed the case to this court on November 22, 2000, asserting diversity as the jurisdictional basis for removal. On December 21, 2000, the Plaintiff motioned the court to remand this matter to state court.
B. Standard for Remand
The Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original federal jurisdiction exists "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Once a motion to remand has been filed, the burden is on the removing party to establish that federal jurisdiction exists. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995). Specifically, in cases such as this, where the plaintiff concedes that the action is between citizens of different states but he asserts that diversity jurisdiction does not exist due to his claim being for less than the federal jurisdictional amount, the plaintiff's damages claim remains presumptively correct unless the defendant can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is actually greater than the minimum jurisdictional amount. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412. As a result, unless the defendant can meet its burden, a plaintiff may avoid federal diversity jurisdiction by pleading, in good faith, state court damages below the minimum federal jurisdictional amount.
C. Discussion
According to the ad damnum clause in his complaint, the Plaintiff in this action does not seek damages of in excess of $75,000.00. And, as noted above, in diversity cases, federal courts possesses subject matter jurisdiction only "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
It is axiomatic that the amount in controversy in a given action is determined from the complaint itself, unless it appears that the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 1573, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938)). Here, the Defendants have not alleged that the Plaintiff has not acted in good faith in seeking less than the minimum federal jurisdictional amount. Likewise, the court discerns no evidence of a lack of good faith on the part of the Plaintiff. Further, the Defendants have made no effort to meet their burden of showing that the amount in controversy in this action actually exceeds the jurisdictional limit. As such, the court determines the amount in controversy from the Plaintiff's complaint, which does not claim damages in excess of the federal jurisdictional minimum amount.
In sum, the court finds that the amount in controversy in this matter does not exceed the minimum federal jurisdictional limit. The court finds, therefore, that federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not exist. As such, this court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this cause, and the Plaintiffs' motion to remand shall be granted.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
• the Plaintiff's motion to remand (docket entry 7) is GRANTED; and
• this cause is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi.