Opinion
Case No. 2:05-cv-391-FtM-29SPC.
February 9, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. #21), filed on January 17, 2006. Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law With Citation of Authorities in Opposition (Doc. #23) on January 24, 2006.
On October 13, 2005, the Court entered an Opinion and Order (Doc. #15) denying plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. #13), finding that the jurisdictional amount was not disputed, and finding complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiff now argues that "it would limit its damages to no more than $75,000 which in effect deprives this Honorable Court of jurisdiction." (Doc. #21, ¶ 3).
Although plaintiff states that it will limit damages, it does not affirmatively state that it would not accept more than $74,999, inclusive of attorney's fees which may be included in the calculation of the jurisdictional amount. Further, the plaintiff's purposeful undervaluation of the case after the jurisdictional amount in controversy was not contested, will not defeat jurisdiction if the original amount claimed was in good faith.Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Prods. Corp., 107 F.2d 17, (5th Cir. 1939) (collecting cases). There is no suggestion of a lack of good faith.
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. #21) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.