Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV104-P-A.
August 10, 2007
ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [9]. After due consideration of the motion and the response filed thereto, the court finds as follows, to-wit:
For substantially the same reasons discussed in this court's ruling in Holmes v. Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc., 436 F.Supp.2d 829 (N.D.Miss. 2006), the court finds that the instant motion to remand is not well-taken and should be denied. Although the Complaint explicitly limits the damages sought to $74,900.00, the defendant has met their burden in demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence — i.e., more likely than not — that the actual amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00 and the plaintiff has not rebutted that showing by demonstrating that it is legally certain the plaintiff is limited to recovering less than $75,000.00. The plaintiff herself did not file an affidavit limiting herself to less than $75,000.00 in damages, nor did she file an affidavit preventing her from filing an amended complaint seeking more than $75,000.00 in the event this case were remanded. It is undisputed that Mississippi law allows a plaintiff to amend her complaint after removal from federal court and to recover damages in excess of the amount contained in her complaint's ad damnum clause. Furthermore, the plaintiff explicitly seeks punitive damages and uses language indicating serious injuries that more often than not would result in damages in excess of $75,000.00 in Mississippi, including her claims to have "suffered extreme physical injury, emotional distress, [and] economic losses. . . ."
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [9] is DENIED.