Troupe v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

Citation. 2009 WL 1938787 (July 2, 2009), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56678 (M.D. Ga. July 2, 2009)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendants for injuries (physical injuries and physical distress) sustained after a slip and fall on the premises owned and operated by Defendant. She then filed a negligence action in Georgia state court alleging that she suffered those injuries because of Defendant‘s negligent inspection and maintenance of its premises. Plaintiff sought damages for medical expenses in excess of $13,637.00, special and general damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Defendant filed a timely answer and notice of removal of the action to federal district court. Plaintiff then filed a motion seeking remand and an award of payment of just costs, actual expenses, and attorney fees incurred.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Removing a case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction is proper if: (1) it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement or (2) the notice of removal contains evidence that the damages likely exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount.

Facts.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the State Court of Bibb County, Georgia, alleging that she was injured during a slip and fall on the premises of Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe physical injuries and excruciating, severe physical distress as a result of Defendant’s negligent inspection and maintenance of the property.  She sought damages for medical expenses in an amount “in excess of $ 13,637.00” and prayed for an additional award of “all damages allowed under Georgia Law including, but not limited to, recovery for special and general damages, including pain and suffering, both mental and physical, in the amount to be proven at the time of trial.” Plaintiff further sought to recover punitive damages, the cost of litigation, and “such other and further relief” as the court deemed just and proper. Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal contained copies of Plaintiff‘s medical records that described the injuries. Plaintiff claimed that the injury aggravated a pre-existing back injury and complained of unrelenting pain for more than a year after the injury. Plaintiff claimed that the pain could not be controlled with medication. Additionally, the notice of removal contained evidence that Plaintiff was self-employed and was forced to reduce her workload of cleaning homes due to the injury. Plaintiff then moved the district court to remand the case back to state court.

Issue.

Is removing a case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction proper if: (1) it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement or (2) the notice of removal contains evidence that the damages likely exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount?

Held.

Yes.

Discussion.

When a plaintiff’s complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, the amount-in-controversy requirement for removal from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction is satisfied in two circumstances. First, the removal is proper if: (1) it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement or (2) the notice of removal contains evidence that the damages would more likely than not exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount. Here, the complaint does not clearly allege extensive damages, such as long-term medical expenses or permanent disability and disfigurement. Instead, the complaint sought an unspecified amount for punitive damages and all other damages allowed under Georgia Law and as the court deemed proper, in addition to the specific amount of damages for medical expenses in excess of $ 13,637. Therefore, plaintiff’s damages were unspecified, and Defendant only needed to prove that, if Plaintiffwins, her damages would “more likely than not” exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of $75,000. The notice of removal presents evidence which show claims of major injuries, including significant pain over a year after the injury. This evidence shows that the damages would “more likely than not” exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount if Plaintiff wins. Therefore, Plaintiff‘s motion to remand is denied.