Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. OO-0874-RV-C
October 31, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendant's Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). Plaintiff originally filed this action in Mobile County Circuit Court on August 18, 2000. The plaintiff alleges inter alia that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted by the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). The complaint requests an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant contends that plaintiff's claims bring the amount in controversy within the purview of this court's diversity jurisdiction. Thus far, the plaintiff has not filed a response. After carefully reviewing the case, the court concludes that the defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that federal diversity jurisdiction exists over this removed action. Accordingly, this case will be remanded sua sponte to the Circuit Court of Mobile County.
Where the legal basis of the original complaint does not allow for removal to federal court
a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title more than 1 year after commencement of the action.28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). Because Wal-Mart removed this action within thirty days of receiving Barber's complaint, the removal was procedurally proper under section 1446(b).
As instructed by the United States Supreme Court, "The federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction." United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 2435, 132 L.Ed.2d 635, 742 (1995). Accord, Wilson v.Minor, 220 F.3d 1297, 1303 n. 11 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Of course, a federal court has an independent obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction over any claim brought before it even if jurisdictional questions are not raised by either party.") (citing Hays); University of So. Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[A] court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.") (citations omitted); Fitzgerald v. Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.").
DISCUSSION
A defendant has a right to remove a civil case from state to federal court if the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). In its notice of removal, Wal-Mart contends that this court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 grants federal subject matter jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. It is undisputed that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. Thus, the sole issue before the court is whether the amount in controversy — as set forth in Barber's unspecified demand for compensatory and punitive damages — exceeds $75,000.
Barber is a citizen of Alabama. Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas.
The Eleventh Circuit has held that where there is an unspecified damages claim, the removing defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfies the federal jurisdictional minimum. See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996). Thus, the removing defendant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy meets the court's jurisdictional threshold. See Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1357. The reason for this burden is that, because removal is conferred by statute, the right of removal must be strictly construed to limit federal jurisdiction. See Lane v. Champion Int'l Corp., 827 F. Supp. 701, 705 (S.D. Ala. 1993). Indeed, where there are unresolved doubts as to whether the removing defendant has shown that the amount in controversy has been satisfied, those doubts must be resolved in favor of remand. See Kline v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 66 F. Supp.2d 1237, 1239 (S.D. Ala. 1999). Therefore, unless the removing defendant can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages sought by the plaintiff meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, an unspecified claim for punitive damages, standing alone, is insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
A removing defendant can discharge this burden by presenting sufficient evidence that a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff would exceed $75,000. See Bolling v. Union Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 900 F. Supp. 400, 405 (M.D. Ala. 1995). For example, a defendant may offer affidavits showing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. See, e.g., De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting with approval the district court's reliance on defendant's testimonial evidence in denying remand). The defendant may also present decisions rendered in comparable cases that yielded liability in excess of $75,000. See, e.g.,Lowe's OK'd Used Cars, Inc. v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 995 F. Supp. 1388, 1392-93 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (reviewing similar Alabama state court cases in determining amount in controversy).
Here, however, Wal-Mart has not met its burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. Wal-Mart has not presented any evidence indicating that the damages in this case satisfy the federal jurisdictional threshold. Nor has Wal-Mart provided a decision from an Alabama state court — or any court for that matter — in which a similar claim in a factually similar action resulted in a judgment for more than $75,000. Instead, Wal-Mart merely offers Barber's complaint and argues that, "[u]pon information and belief, the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. As explained above, however, such a bald assertion, by itself, does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, having failed to offer any evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, Wal-Mart cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this action is greater than that $75,000. Accordingly, the court concludes that this case is due to be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this diversity action because Wal-Mart has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. The court therefore REMANDS sua sponte this matter to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The CLERK is DIRECTED to take all steps necessary to effectuate this remand. Each party shall bear its own costs.