Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:97-0901
November 17, 1997
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.
On August 8, 1997 Plaintiffs filed this class action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Defendants removed the case on September 12, 1997 based solely on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs' complaint states:
[T]hat the value of plaintiff's claims and each individual class member's claims do not exceed the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
In their reply, Plaintiffs assert "`the value of plaintiff's claims' in that paragraph is a reference to all of plaintiffs' damages — not merely the damages recoverable under the defendants' $20,000.00 insurance policy." Reply at 2.
Complaint ¶ 5 (emphasis added) (footnote added).
The Court first notes the well-settled rule barring the aggregation of damages suffered by individual class members to meet the amount in controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction in a putative class action. See, e.g., Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 293-96 (1973);Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335-42 (1969); Glover v. Johns-Manville Corp., 662 F.2d 225, 231 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating "It is clear that in a class action with diversity jurisdiction . . . the determination of the amount in controversy is based upon each plaintiff's claims and not upon the aggregate."); see 3 Herbert Newberg Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 13.40 (3rd ed. 1992); 7A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice Procedure § 1756 (2d ed. 1986). Accordingly, the putative class members independently must have a "matter in controversy [that] exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The Court does not address the rather contentious issue of whether Congressional adoption of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in 1990 overruled Zahn. For that issue to have standing, at least one of the Plaintiffs would have to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. As noted infra, to a legal certainty, none meet the requirement.
In Adkins v. Gibson, 906 F. Supp. 345 (S.D. W. Va. 1995), this Court observed:
Plaintiff has made binding representation to the Court that the amount in controversy is less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), for which he could and would be held accountable under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Based on this representation, the Court finds and concludes the amount in controversy has been established to a legal certainty to be less than the jurisdictional minimum. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and REMANDS the action to the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia for all further proceedings.Adkins, 906 F. Supp. at 348.
In 1996, Congress raised the jurisdictional minimum in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 from $50,000.00 to $75,000.00. See Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1997)).
Defendants assert although the policy limits involved could result in only $20,000.00 to $50,000.00 in compensatory damages, Plaintiffs might also recover punitive damages and attorney fees exceeding the $75,000.00 jurisdictional benchmark. They also argue throughout that Plaintiffs' request for damages was in "unspecified amounts." See, e.g., Defs.' resp. at 18. That argument borders on an intentional misreading of Plaintiffs' allegations. In any event, both arguments fail.
Plaintiffs explicitly disavow punitive damages in their reply brief. As for attorney fees, Plaintiffs make clear such are subject to the self-imposed amount-in-controversy limitation.
Plaintiffs have represented to the Court, in both their briefs and their complaint, without limitation, (1) that "the damages of neither the named defendant [sic] nor any class plaintiff exceeds Seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00), including [sic] interests [sic] and cost [sic,]" pls.' motion at ¶ 4 (emphasis added); and (2) that "the value of plaintiff's claims and each individual class member's claims do not exceed the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs[,]" complaint ¶ 5. Plaintiffs' binding representation limiting their recovery could not be clearer.
Based on this representation, and indeed the record as a whole, the Court finds and concludes, as in Adkins, the amount in controversy has been established to a legal certainty to be less than the jurisdictional minimum as to each and all Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to remand and REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and a certified copy to the Clerk of Court for the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.