Opinion
Civil No. 3: 03-CV-2949-H.
July 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, filed July 1, 2004; Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support, filed July 13, 2004; and Defendant's Response, filed July 22, 2004. Upon review of the pleadings, briefs, and relevant authorities, the Court is of the opinion for the reasons stated below that Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED.
Plaintiff Terrence Gore, proceeding pro se, filed his Original Petition in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on November 18, 2003. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") filed its Answer in that court on December 8, 2003, and subsequently removed to this Court on December 9, 2003. Experian claimed both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in its Notice of Removal. ( See Notice of Removal, filed December 9, 2003.)
Plaintiff originally named Experian Services Corp., as defendant. The Court granted Defendant's motion to amend caption by Order on January 8, 2004, thereby amending the caption to name Experian Information Solutions, Inc. as Defendant.
Plaintiff filed this motion to remand on July 1, 2004, however, he did not file his memorandum in support of this motion until July 13, 2004. Plaintiff asserts in his memorandum in support that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not state a federal question on its face, and because there is not complete diversity of citizenship because Defendant is a citizen of Texas and the amount in controversy stated in the complaint does not exceed $75,000.
Defendant argues in its response and presents evidence in its appendix that it is a citizen of Ohio and California for diversity purposes. Defendant also argues that the complaint, on its face, meets the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. The Court agrees with Defendant and concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity. The Court will not, therefore, address the question of whether federal question jurisdiction is also present.
"The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between — (1) citizens of different States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is deemed a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
There is no dispute that Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is also a citizen of Texas. Defendant, however, presents evidence that it is incorporated in Ohio and has its principal place of business in California. The Court finds that Defendant is a citizen of Ohio and California and not a citizen of Texas.
Plaintiff argues that because his complaint does not state an amount in controversy of $75,000, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. In determining the amount in controversy, the Court must look first to the allegations in the complaint to determine if it is facially apparent that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff alleges in his Original Petition that Defendant is liable for $1,000 per day from approximately October 2002 until the present. ( See Original Pet. at 5.) The Court finds that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore inappropriate. Because the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court will not address Plaintiff's argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.