Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Here the plaintiff sued State Farm for $100,000. State Farm removed the case. Plaintiff moved to remand it. The court denied the motion.
Plaintiff does not dispute that his initial pleading, which sought compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00, as well as attorney’s fees, interest, and costs, satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for § 1332 diversity jurisdiction. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1-1) at 4; Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at 10-12. Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded to the state court, however, because his amended pleading establishes an amount in controversy that is explicitly “less than $75,000.00.” Am. Compl. at 2; see Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2. Defendant State Farm Auto responds that it is the demand in the initial pleading, not that of any subsequent amendment, that forms the appropriate basis for determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy. See Def.’s Resp. at 5.
In deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists over a removed action, a court examines the pleading at the time of removal in order to determine the amount in controversy. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 291 (1938) (“[T]he status of the case as disclosed by the plaintiff’s complaint is controlling in the case of a removal.”); see also Anderson-Thompson, Inc. v. Logan Grain Co., 238 F.2d 598, 601-02 (10th Cir. 1956). Courts have long held that post-removal events, such as amending a complaint to reduce the damages demand to below the jurisdictional minimum, do not destroy diversity jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 292 (“And though . . . the plaintiff after removal, . . . by amendment of his pleadings, reduces the claim below the requisite amount, this does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.”); see, e.g., Redd v. Allstate Assurance Co., No. CIV-17-246-W, 2017 WL 11139926, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 23, 2017) (“Redd’s decision to amend his state court pleading[,] . . . reduc[ing] the amount recoverable below the jurisdictional amount, will not justify remand.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s initial pleading established an amount in controversy of at least $75,000, removal based on diversity jurisdiction was proper. And, because Plaintiff’s post-removal amendment reducing the amount in controversy to less than $75,000 does not destroy that jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s request that the matter be remanded to the state court shall be denied.
Comment: If you wish to defeat efforts to remove a case, pay careful attention to the claims set forth in the initial complaint. What counts for removal is the text of the pleading on the date the case is removed.
Sims v. State Farm, Case No. CIV-23-1022-G., Western District of Oklahoma. Unpublished Opinion.
