951 F.3d 941
8th Cir.2020Background
- On May 7, 2010, Amy Mensah (then Hiltner) was injured when she fell from a car trunk and sustained permanent head injuries.
- A related bench trial (Hiltner) apportioned fault among friends; Jeffries was allocated a share of liability.
- Mensah sued Owners Insurance to recover underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits for Jeffries’s apportioned share; the sum she sought from Owners was $61,718.67.
- Owners removed Mensah’s state-court action to federal court, citing diversity and supplemental jurisdiction; the district court granted Owners’s motion for summary judgment.
- On appeal, the court first reviewed whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; the parties conceded the amount-in-controversy was below $75,000.
- The court held removal improper: no diversity jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy does not exceed $75,000, and no supplemental jurisdiction because Mensah’s suit was a separate action, not a claim within the federal Hiltner action; the case was remanded to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists (amount in controversy) | Mensah argued the claim is for less than $75,000 and removal was improper. | Owners initially asserted diversity supported removal (original federal jurisdiction). | No diversity jurisdiction; amount in controversy is known to be below $75,000, so removal under §1332 was improper. |
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction supports federal removal | Mensah argued this is a separate action and not an "other claim" in the federal Hiltner case. | Owners argued supplemental jurisdiction is broad and could encompass this related suit. | No supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(a); this is a separately filed case, not a claim within the federal action, so supplemental jurisdiction does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard: de novo review of summary-judgment rulings)
- Hurt v. Dow Chem. Co., 963 F.2d 1142 (8th Cir. 1992) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2015) (existence of diversity jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2007) (doubts about removal favor remand to state court)
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (party asserting jurisdiction must prove amount in controversy by a preponderance)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (removal proper only when action could have been filed originally in federal court)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (if it is legally certain claim is for less than jurisdictional amount, federal jurisdiction is improper)
- Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2017) (related appellate decision concerning apportionment in the companion case)