Opinion
4:08-CV-00148-WRW.
April 1, 2008
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6). Defendant has responded.
Doc. No. 8.
Plaintiff's original complaint reads: "Plaintiff prays for judgment over and against the Defendant for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Federal Court jurisdiction; for punitive damages. . . ." On February 19, 2008, Defendant removed this case to the EDAR, since there is complete diversity and Plaintiff sought damages greater than $75,000. On March 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which reduced his claim for damages to $70,000, and a Motion to Remand.
Doc. No. 2.
Doc. No. 1.
Doc. Nos. 5, 6.
It is well-settled that a plaintiff's post-removal attempt to reduce the amount-in-controversy below the jurisdictional minimum will not affect federal jurisdiction.
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294 (1956) (A "subsequent reduction of the amount claimed cannot oust the district court's jurisdiction."); Lynch v. Porter, 446 F.2d 225, 228 (8th Cir. 1971) (Holding that "[s]ubsequent events reducing the amount in controversy will not affect the jurisdiction of the court.").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.