Summary
finding federal jurisdiction for one claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in an action regarding environmental damage to two adjacent tracts of land because all of the claims arose out of the same case or controversy
Summary of this case from Gregory v. BruceOpinion
1:01CV130
April 19, 2002
MEMORANDUN OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs originally commenced this action in the Superior Court of Davidson County, North Carolina, on December 29, 2000. Their complaint alleged that Defendants had caused environmental damage to two parcels of land located in Davidson County, a 300-acre tract and an adjacent 144-acre tract. The 300-acre tract is owned by Plaintiffs Thomas C. Evans, Sr. and wife, Wanda W. Evans. The 144-acre tract is owned jointly by the Evanses and the other Plaintiffs, Judith Evans Smith and husband, Darrell T. Smith, and Sara Evans Jones and husband, George W. Jones, Jr.
Defendant Plantation Pipe Line Company ("Plantation") filed notice of removal to this court on February 1, 2001, asserting that jurisdiction in the federal court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs thereafter moved to remand the case to state court on the grounds that Plantation failed to establish that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction had been met.
Having reviewed both the original submissions and the supplemental briefs of the parties with regard to this motion, the court finds that the instant case is subject to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and therefore, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 was proper. The evidence now before the court demonstrates that the Evanses' claims for damages to the 300-acre tract exceed $75,000, thereby satisfying the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy. The fact that this evidence came to light during the discovery period, after Plantation's notice of removal had been filed, does not render it unavailable for the court's consideration. See Gwyn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 955 F. Supp.2d 44, 46 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (recognizing "implicit premise" that "until jurisdiction becomes determinate, the court may consider any evidence of the amount in controversy").
Having determined that at least one of Plaintiffs' claims is subject to federal jurisdiction, the court further finds that supplemental jurisdiction is proper over the remainder of the claims in this action, brought by the Evanses, the Smiths, and the Joneses, on the 144-acre parcel. This is true regardless of the amount of damages sought on that parcel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Rosmer v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110, 117 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting § 1367's "broad grant of authority for supplemental jurisdiction, subject only to the express limitations in the Act"). The claims brought by Plaintiffs on the 144-acre tract (which is adjacent to the 300-acre tract) form part of the same case or controversy as the claims brought by Plaintiffs Evans on the 300-acre tract, which have already been deemed subject to federal jurisdiction. Moreover, none of the statutorily-defined exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction are present in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Therefore,
Although Plantation has presented both evidence and authority that Plaintiffs' admissions with regard to the 144-acre tract establish that those claims also exceed $75,000, it is unnecessary for the court to make such a determination to decide the pending motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand by Plaintiffs Thomas C. Evans, Sr. and wife, Wanda W. Evans, Judith Evans Smith and husband, Darrell T. Smith, and Sara Evans Jones and husband, George W. Jones, Jr., is DENIED.