Bonnell v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 30 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 331. |
| Citation | 202 F. Supp. 53 |
| Parties | Eunice BONNELL, joined by and with her husband, Irving Bonnell, and Irving Bonnell, individually, Plaintiffs, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Philip Barton, Gainesville, Fla., for plaintiffs.
James E. Clayton, Gainesvile, Fla., for defendant.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this cause to the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Alachua County, Florida on the grounds that the petition for removal was not timely filed.
On June 6, 1961 plaintiffs, citizens of Florida, filed their complaint against defendant, a corporation, incorporated in Virginia, and with principal place of business located in Richmond, and alleged damages "in excess of five-hundred dollars ($500.00)."
On June 29, 1961 defendant answered setting forth various grounds for his defense.
Plaintiff directed certain interrogatories to defendant which in the course of state court proceedings were answered.
On November 1, 1961, pursuant to Rule 1.30, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., defendant requested plaintiff to admit in writing, on or before November 13, 1961, that the matter in controversy exceeded the sum of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff made no response thereto.
On November 28, 1961 defendant filed a petition for removal to this court alleging diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount as its basis for invoking the jurisdiction of this court.
Plaintiffs contend that this court should remand on the ground that removal was attempted too late. On July 31, 1961 counsel for plaintiff wrote counsel for defendant demanding $50,000 in settlement. This was rejected. Plaintiffs contend that this was sufficient notice for defendant to be apprised that the matter in controversy exceeded the sum of ten thousand dollars, and that defendant had twenty days from that time in which to remove. Plaintiffs also urge that since the letter referred to the taking of a deposition of a physician, and since the physician subsequently testified on deposition that one of the plaintiffs' permanent physical disabilities was approximately 30%, therefore, they say, the letter and the deposition taken together showed at that time the requisite jurisdictional amount.
It would follow, then, under this argument, that the statutory twenty day period available to defendant for removal began to run on that day.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 authorizes the removal of cases from state courts where there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
The jurisdictional amount is that amount which is claimed by the plaintiff in his complaint and not that which is alleged in the defendant's petition for removal. Gaitor v. Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Company et al., 287 F. 2d 252 (5th Cir.1961).
Since in this case the plaintiffs' complaint merely alleged damages in excess of $500.00 the defendant could not remove this cause from the state court until it was shown that the requisite jurisdictional amount existed.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) authorizes removal of causes from state courts where the cause stated by the initial pleading is not removable. "A petition for removal may be filed within twenty 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." (Emphasis added)
In Putterman v. Daveler, 169 F.Supp. 125 (D.C.Del.1958), it was held that in order to meet the sufficiency of the statute, the term "other paper" meant a paper which was filed of record. In construing the term "through service or otherwise", the court held in Potter v. McCauley, 186 F.Supp. 146 (D.C.Md. 1960), that upon defendant's counsel receiving copy of the complaint prior to the time service was made upon defendant personally, and prior to the time the complaint was filed of record, the twenty day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valspar Corp.
...letter did not constitute an “other paper” because that category included only court-filed documents); Bonnell v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 202 F.Supp. 53, 55 (N.D.Fla.1962) (stating that “mere correspondence” between counsel did not fall within the definition of “other paper”). “Although the......
-
Robinson v. Quality Ins. Co.
...The most persuasive of these is Rollwitz v. Burlington N.R.R., 507 F.Supp. 582 (D.Mont.1981). The seminal case is Bonnell v. Seaboard Air L.R.R., 202 F.Supp. 53 (N.D.Fla.1962). Bonnell held that a complaint alleging damages greater than $500.00, the jurisdictional minimum in state court, di......
-
Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
...was filed with the state court, distinguishing it from the correspondence between counsel deemed inadequate in Bonnell v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co., 202 F.Supp. 53 (N.D.Fla.1962). Orkin does not contend that it was unaware of the Robersons' proposed pretrial order, a circumstance of import......
-
Rollwitz v. Burlington Northern RR
...amount is in controversy. A number of cases are in apparent agreement with Professor Moore. For example, in Bonnell v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., 202 F.Supp. 53 (N.D.Fla.1962), plaintiff brought a personal injury action in state court without stating the amount in controversy, merely a......
-
The 30-day removal time limit: when does the clock start ticking?
...Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1998); and Essenson v. Coale, 848 F. Supp. 987 (M.D. Fla. 1994); Bonnell v. Seaboard Airline Railroad Company, 202 F. Supp. 53 (M.D. Fla. (7) Viacom, Inc., 882 F. Supp. at 1064. (8) Id. (9) Id., citing Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. ......