988 F. Supp. 2d 472
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- On June 7, 2011 water damaged the granite flooring of Plaintiffs’ home and State Farm allegedly refused payment under their homeowners policy.
- On June 6, 2013 Plaintiffs filed claims for breach of contract and bad faith seeking damages “in excess of $50,000” plus costs and fees.
- On April 4, 2013 Plaintiffs provided a contractor estimate of $55,315 to replace the floor.
- On August 20, 2013 Defendant served Requests for Admission about the total damages being under various thresholds; Plaintiffs objected and denied that the amount did not exceed $75,000.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court on October 7, 2013; Plaintiffs moved to remand arguing lack of proven amount in controversy and untimeliness of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Minissales argues only $55,315 actual damages are evidenced. | Allowance of punitive damages and attorney’s fees could push total above $75,000. | The court found the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000 based on available evidence. |
| Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Removal was untimely because filed over 30 days after complaint. | Removal timely under 1446(b)(3) as information about amount in controversy was first ascertained later via other papers. | Removal was untimely; the court dismissed removal as untimely and granted remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (amount in controversy must be proven by a legal certainty or preponderance depending on the record)
- Packard v. Provident Nat. Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1993) (punitive damages considered with actual damages for jurisdictional amount)
- Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 1997) (attorney’s fees may be included in calculating amount in controversy)
- Valley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (damages and fees can push claims over threshold based on reasonable reading of claims)
- Irving v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (courts require substantial evidence beyond conjecture to meet jurisdictional threshold)
- Broderick v. Dellasandro, 859 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (attorney correspondence can be considered an 'other paper' triggering removal)
- Lee v. Walmart, Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 577 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (refusal to stipulate damages alone is inconclusive for jurisdiction)
- TJS Brokerage & Co. v. CRST, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (refusal to stipulate may not alone establish jurisdiction)