Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cheatwood v. Quicktrip Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

October 29, 2014

KIMSEY CHEATWOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
QUICKTRIP CORPORATION, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant QuickTrip Corporation's ("QuickTrip" or "Defendant") Notice of Removal [1] ("Notice") and Plaintiff Kimsey Cheatwood's ("Cheatwood" or "Plaintiff') Objection to Removal [7], which the Court construes as Plaintiffs Motion to Remand ("Motion").

I. BACKGROUND

On February 17. 2014, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [1.1] in the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia.[1] Plaintiff alleges that he was injured at a QuickTrip store when he "slipped and fell on the wet floor" on April 3, 2012. (Compl. at ¶ 9). He claims past special damages for medical expenses in the amount of $10, 945.76, and damages in unspecified amounts for future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, impairments, temporary and permanent disabilities, mental distress, and lost wages. (Id. at ¶¶: 20, 23). Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages. (Id. at ¶ 25).

On March 13, 2014, Defendant removed the Clayton County action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Notice at 4). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of Georgia and that QuickTrip is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (Id. at ¶ 3). Defendant claims that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. (Id.).

On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to allege that he "seeks a maximum recovery of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and limits his recovery to a maximum amount of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs." (Am. Compl. [6] at ¶ 1). On that same day, Plaintiff filed his Motion, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because (1) Defendant failed to show in its Notice of Removal that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and (2) his Amended Complaint now shows that he "limits the maximum amount of money recoverable to $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs."[2] (Mot. at ¶¶ 2-4). Plaintiff contends that this action is required to be remanded to the Superior Court of Clayton County.

On April 25, 2014, Defendant filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Objection to Removal ("Opposition" [8.1]) arguing that, based on the nature and severity of Plaintiff's alleged injuries, his claim for pain and suffering, the cost of future medical treatment, and Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

"Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Defendant removed this action on the ground that the Court has federal diversity jurisdiction, which extends to "all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, " and is between "citizens of different states." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (2). The parties agree that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. They disagree whether the amount in controversy has been met. It is well-settled that the jurisdictional amount is determined as of the date of removal. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc. , 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010).

When a case is removed to federal court, a removing defendant must file a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446. "If a plaintiff makes an unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the... jurisdictional requirement.' Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc. , 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp. , 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996) overruled on other grounds by Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc. , 204 F.3d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 2000)).

Although the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is satisfied, it may do so in two ways. In some cases, it may be "facially apparent" from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, even where "the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages." Id . (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc. , 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)). Where a defendant alleges that removability is apparent from the face of the complaint, the district court may use its "judicial experience and common sense" to determine if the amount in controversy has been met. Id. at 1062. In evaluating the complaint allegations, the district court is not required to "suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of the complaint establishes the jurisdictional amount." Pretka , 608 F.3d at 770 (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc. , 637 F.Supp.2d 995, 999 (M.D. Ala. 2009)). There must, however, be sufficient allegations in the complaint for a court to conclude that the jurisdictional amount is met. Although a court may use its common sense in light of its judicial experience in deciding if the allegations in the complaint, as well as deductions, and inferences from them, support a finding that the amount in controversy has been alleged sufficiently, such deductions and inferences must be reasonable and supported in the complaint. Arrington v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2:14-CV-209, 2014 WL 2961104 at *6 (M.D. Ala. July 1, 2014).

If the jurisdictional amount cannot be determined from the face of the complaint, the removing defendant may "provid[e] additional evidence demonstrating that removal is proper." Roe , 613 F.3d at 1061 (quoting Pretka , 608 F.3d at 753-754). Where a defendant submits other evidence to show the amount in controversy, a court may rely on the other evidence, as well as reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from it, to determine if the defendant has carried its burden to show that the jurisdictional amount exceeds $75, 000. Pretka , 608 F.3d at 754. "[S]ometimes, the defendant's evidence on the value of a plaintiff's claims will be even better than the plaintiff's evidence." Id. at 771. In the end, a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.