Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-7164,91-7164
• Citation: 969 F.2d 160
• Parties: Adam Frederick CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWERMATIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 160

969 F.2d 160

Adam Frederick CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWERMATIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-7164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 1992.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Sept. 21, 1992.

Charles W. McGarry, Kim R. Thorne, Grand Prairie, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Mark A. Shank, William L. Davis, Clark West Keller Butler & Ellis, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:

Adam Frederick Chapman (Chapman), a student at Duncanville High School in Duncanville, Texas, was injured when his right hand came into contact with a wood planer On June 28, 1990, Chapman sued Powermatic in state court alleging numerous causes of action. ² The petition was served on Powermatic on July 10, and Powermatic filed its answer on July 26. The petition revealed that there was complete diversity of citizenship between the two parties, but it did not plead for a specific amount of damages. On August 17, 1990, Chapman answered the first set of interrogatories that Powermatic had served on him in which Chapman stated that he had suffered damages in excess of $800,000. On August 27, Powermatic filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "USDC). In response, Chapman moved to have the case remanded to state court contending that Powermatic did not timely remove the case. The USDC denied Chapman's motion to remand holding that the "[d]efendant removed this case within 30 days from the time it received answers to interrogatories stating that the amount in controversy was over $50,000. This case was timely removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)." The case proceeded to trial before a jury; and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Powermatic did not cause Chapman's injuries. The USDC entered a take nothing judgment on the jury's verdict. Chapman appeals the USDC's denial of his motion to remand.

                in the wood-working shop of the high school.   Shortly thereafter, on March 27, 1990, Chapman's attorney sent a letter to Powermatic, Inc., (Powermatic), the manufacturer of the wood planer, advising Powermatic that it was a potential defendant and that Chapman had incurred medical expenses in the amount of $67,196.48.   Additionally, in April 1990, Chapman provided the investigative service hired by Powermatic with copies of Chapman's medical bills. 1
                

DISCUSSION

Both parties agree that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction exist in this case: the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000," and the parties are "citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). What the parties do not agree on, however, and what Chapman's appeal concerns, is whether Powermatic timely removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Section 1446(b) provides in pertinent part that:

[the] notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based....

If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable....

In essence, when read as a whole, § 1446(b) provides a two-step test for determining whether a defendant timely removed a case. The first paragraph provides that if the case stated by the initial pleading is removable, then notice of removal must be filed within thirty days from the receipt of the initial pleading by the defendant; and the second paragraph provides, if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, then notice of removal must be filed within thirty days from the receipt of an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which the defendant can ascertain that the case is removable.

A. Initial Pleading

Relying on the first paragraph of § 1446(b), Chapman contends that the district court erred in not remanding the case to state court because Powermatic did not remove the case within thirty days from its receipt of the initial pleading. To support his contention that the district court erred Chapman argues that all pleadings fall into one of three categories: (1) removable, (2) nonremovable, and (3) indeterminate as to removability. The initial pleading in this case was indeterminate as to removability, Chapman contends, because it revealed that there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, but it pled for an indeterminate amount of damages. ³ When a pleading is indeterminate as to removability, Chapman contends, a defendant is under a duty to exercise due diligence in determining whether the case is in fact removable. Applying that duty of due diligence to the facts of the present case, Chapman contends that Powermatic was required under the first paragraph of § 1446(b) to remove the case within 30 days from its receipt of the initial pleading, because the initial pleading revealed that there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and Powermatic knew or in the exercise of due diligence should have known that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000. ⁴

We have found no circuit court opinions that address whether a defendant is under a duty to exercise due diligence in determining the amount in controversy when the initial pleading does not reveal such an amount, and the district court opinions addressing this question are in disagreement. ⁵ In large part, Chapman bases his contention that Powermatic did not timely remove the case on the district court opinion of Mielke v. Allstate Insurance Company, 472 F.Supp. 851 (E.D.Mich.1979). In Mielke, the initial pleading of the plaintiff did not contain a specific demand for damages, however, before the defendant had received the initial pleading, the plaintiff had sent the defendant copies of medical bills and expenses that revealed that he was seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of the federal court. Additionally, the defendant admitted that it had actual knowledge that the plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. Forty-five days after receiving the initial pleading, but only thirty days after receiving an amended pleading revealing that the amount in controversy was in excess of five million dollars, the defendant removed the case. After removal, the district court remanded the case to state court holding that removal of the case was untimely because the defendant should have ascertained from the circumstance and the initial pleading that the defendant was seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount. The court stated that "there is no reason to allow a defendant additional time if the presence of grounds for removal are unambiguous in light of the defendant's knowledge and the claims made in the initial complaint." Id. at 853.

We disagree with the opinion of the district court in Mielke, and conclude that for the purposes of the first paragraph of § 1446(b), the thirty day time period in which a defendant must remove a case starts to run from defendant's receipt of the initial pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its face that the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of the federal court. ⁶ We adopt this rule because we conclude that it promotes certainty and judicial efficiency by not requiring courts to inquire into what a particular defendant may or may not subjectively know. The rule announced in Mielke, which Chapman proposes that we adopt, in contrast, would needlessly inject uncertainty into a court's inquiry as to whether a defendant has timely removed a case, and as a result would require courts to expend needlessly their resources trying to determine what the defendant knew at the time it received the initial pleading and what the defendant would have known had it exercised due diligence. Moreover, the rule in Mielke would encourage defendants to remove prematurely cases in which the initial pleading does not affirmatively reveal that the amount in controversy is in excess of $50,000 so as to be sure that they do not accidentally waive their right to have the case tried in a federal court. We believe the better policy is to focus the parties' and the court's attention on what the initial pleading sets forth, by adopting a bright line rule requiring the plaintiff, if he wishes the thirty-day time period to run from the defendant's receipt of the initial pleading, to place in the initial pleading a specific allegation that damages are in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount.

B. Other Paper

Chapman's second contention is that even if the initial pleading did not state a case that was removable pursuant to the first paragraph of § 1446(b), Powermatic's removal was still untimely pursuant to the second paragraph of § 1446(b). The medical bills and demand letter delivered by Chapman to Powermatic before it was sued revealing that Chapman was seeking damages in excess of $50,000, Chapman contends, were "other paper" within the meaning of the second paragraph of § 1446(b). Therefore, Chapman contends, Powermatic's receipt of that "other paper" (medical bills and demand letter) before it was sued, revealing that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, coupled with Powermatic's receipt of the initial pleading revealing complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, triggered the thirty-day time limit of the second paragraph of § 1446(b). In other words, Chapman contends that "other paper"...