United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS
E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and
Abstention. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, the
Court GRANTS the motion and
REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of
Logan County, West Virginia.
I.
BACKGROUND
This
case arises out of an injury Plaintiff allegedly suffered at
one of Defendant's stores in Logan County, West Virginia.
(ECF No. 1-2 at 3 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff is a resident of West
Virginia, (id. ¶ 1), and Defendant is a limited
partnership existing under the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Arkansas. (ECF No. 1 at 2
¶ 5). The Complaint filed in state court and attached to
Defendant's Notice of Removal alleges that on July 6,
2017, Plaintiff was a customer at Defendant's store when
she slipped and fell on water that had accumulated on the
floor inside. (ECF No. 1-2 at 3 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges
that she “occurred [sic; incurred] medical expenses,
suffered mental anguish, and endured pain and suffering,
” and will require “future medical expenses,
endure physical and mental pain and suffering and a loss of
capacity to enjoy life.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff asserts negligence as the sole cause of action and
requests relief in the forms of “compensatory damages,
pain and suffering, post-accident terror, aggravation,
annoyance [and] inconvenience, pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, court costs and any other legal
relief that may be available.” (Id. at 3-4
¶¶ 5-7.)
Plaintiff
filed her Complaint in the Circuit Court of Logan County,
West Virginia, on August 9, 2017. (ECF No. 1-2; ECF No. 1 at
1 ¶ 1.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on
September 12, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) In the Notice of Removal,
Defendant asserts that the sole basis for this Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case is diversity
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Id. at 2
¶ 6.)
Plaintiff
filed the current Motion for Remand and Abstention on
September 20, 2017, in which she argues that this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter because the
amount in controversy is below the $75, 000 requirement for
diversity jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 6 at 2-3.)
Defendant filed its response to the motion on September 27,
2017, (ECF No. 7), and Plaintiff replied on October 9, 2017,
(ECF No. 8). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for
adjudication.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Article
III of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent
part, that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend . . . to
Controversies . . . between Citizens of different
States.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1).
Congress
provided a right to remove a case from state to federal court
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute states, in relevant
part:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,
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 or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Because removal of civil cases from
state to federal court infringes state sovereignty, federal
courts strictly construe the removal statute and resolve all
doubts in favor of remanding cases to state court. See
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,
109 (1941); see also Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems.
Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Because
removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns,
we must strictly construe removal jurisdiction.”
(citation omitted)).
The
party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
proof. Landmark Corp. v. Apogee Coal Co., 945
F.Supp. 932, 935 (S.D. W.Va. 1996). “A defendant that
removes a case from state court in which the damages sought
are unspecified, asserting the existence of federal diversity
jurisdiction, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the value of the matter in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional amount.” Id. (citing Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)).
“This test is framed alternatively as a requirement
that a defendant demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
amount.” Id. (citation omitted). “To
satisfy this burden, a defendant must offer more than a bare
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000,
” Judy v. JK Harris & Co., No. 2:10-
cv-01276, 2011 WL 4499316, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 27, 2011)
(citation omitted), and must supply evidence regarding the
amount at issue. See McCoy v. Erie Ins. Co., 147
F.Supp.2d 481, 489 (S.D. W.Va. 2001). “In so doing, he
may rely upon the entirety of the facts and circumstances
comprising the plaintiff's damages claim.”
Judy, 147 F.Supp.2d at 489 (citation omitted).
Where
the plaintiff's monetary demand is not specified in the
complaint, “[t]he value of the matter in controversy .
. . is determined by considering the judgment that would be
entered if plaintiff prevailed on the merits.”
Landmark Corp., 945 F.Supp. at 936-37 (citation
omitted). To calculate the amount in controversy, a court may
consider the entire record and make an independent evaluation
of whether the amount in controversy is satisfied. See
Grubb v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 2:05-0056,
2005 WL 1378721, at *5 (S.D. W.Va. June 2, 2005) (citation
omitted).
III.
...