Central Iowa Agri-Systems v. Old Heritage Adv., Civ. No. 89-594-A.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 89-594-A. |
| Citation | 727 F. Supp. 1304 |
| Parties | CENTRAL IOWA AGRI-SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, v. OLD HERITAGE ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHERS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Joseph R. Cahill of Cahill Law Offices, Nevada, Iowa, for plaintiff.
Larry J. Handley of Brick, Seckington, Bowers, Swartz & Gentry, P.C., Ankeny, Iowa, for defendant.
RULING REMANDING CASE TO IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR STORY COUNTY
The narrow question here is whether defendant filed its notice of removal of plaintiff's state court action within the time required by 28 United States Code section 1446(b). The pertinent language of that statute provides:
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....
The court concludes that defendant did not file and serve its notice of removal within thirty days after it knew the jurisdictional amount was satisfied. The court remands the plaintiff's action to the Iowa District Court for Story County.
The plaintiff's petition filed in the Iowa District Court for Story County did not state a specific amount of damages, because Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) provides that a pleading "shall not state the specific amount of money damages sought but shall state whether the amount of damages is more or less than the Iowa court's jurisdictional amount." From the commencement of this action on December 14, 1988, until September 5, 1989, the parties prepared the case for trial in state court, filing necessary pleadings and participating in discovery and other pretrial procedures. Then on September 5, 1989, defendant filed its notice of removal of the action to this federal court, basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount and asserting it had learned from answers to interrogatories received eighteen days before that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000. The jurisdictional amount required in this case was $10,000, not the $50,000 substituted by Public Law 100-702, Title II, § 201, applicable to "any civil action commenced on or after the 180th day after Nov. 19, 1988."
Plaintiff contends the defendant had reason to know the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000 as early as March 25, 1988, the date of a letter the defendant received from plaintiff's counsel stating plaintiff had "conservatively estimated present and future damages at $40,000." Defendant responds that the pre-suit letter of March 25, 1988, does not qualify as an "other paper" within the meaning of section 1446(b), quoted above. Defendant argues the only qualifying "other paper" in this case was the formal response to its written interrogatory, that provided the defendant on August 18, 1989, formal information about the amount plaintiff was demanding.
This court concludes the words "other paper" extend to a demand letter of the type ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valspar Corp.
...memorializing the settlements between plaintiffs and resident defendants). Cf. Central Iowa Agri–Systems v. Old Heritage Advertising and Publishers, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 1304, 1305 (S.D.Iowa 1989) (holding that plaintiff's demand letter establishing the amount in controversy was an “other pape......
-
Katonah v. USAir, Inc.
...cases interpreting subsection (b), courts have allowed removal for such papers as a demand letter, Central Iowa Agri-Sys. v. Old Heritage Advertising, 727 F.Supp. 1304, 1305 (S.D.Iowa 1989), or a deposition, Riggs v. Continental Baking Co., 678 F.Supp. 236, 238 (N.D.Cal.1988). However, case......
-
Haber v. Chrysler Corp.
..."clues" of potential federal jurisdiction as soon as they are uncovered. See, e.g., Central Iowa Agri-Systems v. Old Heritage Advertising & Publishers, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 1304, 1305 (S.D.Iowa 1989). For all of these reasons, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's deposition ......
-
Sunburst Bank v. Summit Acceptance Corp.
...qualified as "other paper" for purposes of applying the time limit of § 1446(b)); Central Iowa Agri-Systems v. Old Heritage Advertising and Publishers, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 1304, 1305 (S.D.Iowa 1989) (holding that plaintiff's pre-suit demand letter was an "other Further, some courts construe §......
-
Amount in controversy and removal: current trends and strategic considerations.
...Lee v. Altamil Corp., 457 F.Supp. 979 (M.D. Fla. 1978). [9.] 969 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1992). [10.] Id. at 163 (emphasis added). [11.] 727 F.Supp. 1304 (S.D. Iowa 1989). [12.] 842 F.Supp. 225 (M.D. La. 1994). [13.] Id. at 226 (emphasis added). [14.] 1994 WL 117782 (E.D. La. 1994). [15.] See al......