Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98 Civ. 2248 (DDA/AJB).,98 Civ. 2248 (DDA/AJB). |
| Citation | 41 F.Supp.2d 943 |
| Parties | Joseph C. DYRDA, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Owen R. Humphreys, Herbert, Welch, Humphreys & Grindberg, Forest Lake, MN, for plaintiff.
Andrew L. Marshall, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.
The above matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated November 20, 1998. The magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff's motion to remand this action to the District Court of Washington County, Minnesota be granted. The defendant has filed timely objection to the report and recommendation.
The initial inquiry is whether the Court is to review the magistrate judge's recommendation on a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)) or instead is "to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report" to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matters pending before the Court with certain specified exceptions 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A motion to remand is not included within the exceptions specified. Under § 636(b)(1)(A) a magistrate judge may issue his or her order on such a pretrial matter and the district judge's reconsideration of it is under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard.
Judge David S. Doty of this Court has thoughtfully reviewed the status of a motion to remand within this framework and concluded that "a motion to remand is a non-dispositive matter that a magistrate judge can determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)" and thus should be reviewed by the district judge under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See Banbury v. Omnitrition Intern., Inc. 818 F.Supp. 276, 279 (D.Minn. 1993).
Although this judge concurs with Judge Doty's analysis and conclusion, in this instance the magistrate judge resolved the issue by way of report and recommendation. In that report the magistrate judge referenced Local Rule 72.1(c)(2) which provides for de novo review. Under these circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to make a de novo determination of the issue presented.
In his report the magistrate judge has succinctly outlined the facts bearing on the issue of whether or not remand is appropriate. The salient facts may be summarized as follows:
1. The action is one for personal injuries alleged to have occurred on January 25, 1997, when the plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy surface in the parking lot of the defendant's Wal-Mart Store, Inc. in Forest Lake, Minnesota.
2. On June 25, 1998, plaintiff proffered a settlement demand with defendant's insurer of $43,000.00.
3. In September of 1998 plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for damages in the District Court of Washington County, Minnesota.
4. Plaintiff's complaint did not allege a specific amount of damages, but contained a prayer for relief in excess of $50,000.00 in compliance with Minnesota Pleading Law.
5. Minnesota's Pleading Law provides as follows:
If a recovery of money for unliquidated damages in an amount greater than $50,000.00 is demanded, the pleading shall state merely that recovery of reasonable damages in an amount greater than $50,000.00 is sought.
48 M.S.A.Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8.01.
6. On October 13, 1998, defendant filed a petition for removal of the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties.
7. There are no procedural defects in the removal.
8. There is complete diversity between the plaintiff and the defendant.
9. On October 28, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion for remand to Washington County District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
10. To establish its position that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, defendant refers the Court to the original complaint delineating the nature and extent of the claimed damages.
11. Defendant has offered evidence that verdicts and settlements in other cases where plaintiffs have suffered injuries similar to those of the plaintiff, were valued by the parties and juries at over $75,000.00.
12. At the hearing on the motion before the magistrate judge, plaintiff's counsel, in open court, stipulated that any damage award shall not equal or exceed $75,000.00.
1. The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show that the required amount in controversy is met. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th Cir.1969). In this instance that burden is upon the defendant.
2. Where the complaint states a specific amount lower than the required jurisdictional amount, a defendant seeking removal "must show that it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy" exceeds $75,000.00. Corlew v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 878, 879 (E.D.Mo.1997); Central Associated Carriers, Inc. v. Nickelberry, 995 F.Supp. 1031, 1033 (W.D.Mo.1998).
3. The "legal certainty" test is not applicable where a plaintiff does not allege a specific jurisdictional amount in the complaint. McCorkindale v. American Home Assur. Co., 909 F.Supp. 646, 651 (N.D.Iowa 1995).
4. "The jurisdictional facts must be judged at the time of the removal, and any post-petition affidavits are allowable only if relevant to that period of time." Gilmer v. Walt Disney Co., 915 F.Supp. 1001, 1007 (W.D.Ark.1996)
The problem confronted by the magistrate judge and now by this Court on appeal, is to reconcile these standards when a plaintiff is required by Minnesota Pleading Law to seek recovery only in an amount "greater than $50,000.00." The magistrate judge concluded that in that instance a plaintiff's stipulation to limit damages below the jurisdictional requisite of $75,000.00 must prevail. The magistrate judge points out that the plaintiff does not seek to reduce the original amount sought or to change the circumstances after the filing of the complaint but seeks only to clarify the amount of damages beyond what he is allowed to claim by Minnesota Pleading Law. This Court is satisfied that that conclusion is proper under the circumstances presented.
When a plaintiff's complaint in a case filed in state court alleges damages pursuant to 48 M.S.A.Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8.01 "in an amount greater than $50,000.00" and thereafter stipulates to a recovery less than the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00, that stipulation will govern and the case will be remanded.
Upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is accepted and the plaintiff's motion to remand to the District Court of Washington County is GRANTED. The Clerk shall return the file in this case to the Clerk of the District Court of Washington County, Minnesota, ten (10) days following the date of this Order.
THIS MATTER came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on November 17, 1998, for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to remand to Washington County District Court. [Docket No. 6]. Owen R. Humphreys, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Joseph C. Dyrda. Andrew L. Marshall, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Based on the file and documents contained therein, and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following report and recommendations:
FACTS
Plaintiff alleges that on January 25, 1997, he slipped, fell, and was injured on an icy surface in the parking lot of Defendant Wal-Mart Store, Inc. located in Forest Lake, Minnesota. He alleges that his injuries required medical care, and resulted in medical expenses, loss of earnings and capacity to earn, physical pain, mental distress and permanent injury. On June 25, 1998, Plaintiff proffered a settlement demand with Defendant's insurer for $43,000. In September 1998, Plaintiff served a complaint on Defendant seeking damages for personal injuries. The complaint did not allege a specific amount of damages but contained a prayer for relief in excess of $50,000, in compliance with Minnesota pleading law.1 On October 13, 1998, Defendant filed a petition for removal to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on diversity jurisdiction as illustrated in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff has brought a motion for remand to Washington County District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff contends that, even assuming diversity of parties,2 Defendant has failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff argues that in June 1998, he valued his injuries at $43,000, as evidenced by his settlement demand. Plaintiff argues that while his complaint sought damages in excess of $50,000, at no time did he assert that damages would exceed $75,000. Upon hearing of Plaintiff's motion to remand on November 17, 1998, Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to damages less than $75,000.
Defendant contends, and offers support for a reasonable probability that Plaintiff's damages exceed $75,000. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff's proposed stipulation to damages less than $75,000 is not dispositive.
Any civil action brought in state court where the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant to the appropriate federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original jurisdiction exists in the district courts in all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Once a case has been removed to federal court, a motion to remand to state court may be brought on the basis of any defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). If it appears that the district court lacks subject matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agre v. Rain & Hail LLC
...A post-petition affidavit is relevant to clarify ambiguities regarding damages alleged at time of removal. See Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 943, 949 (D.Minn.1999). Defendants, in removing these cases to federal court, claim that, notwithstanding the complaints' stated claim ......
-
Moline Machinery, Ltd. v. Pollsbury Co.
...Bank (FULDA) v. American Lenders Facilities, Inc., 2000 WL 1336655 at *1 n. 1 (D.Minn., May 23, 2000); Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F. Supp.2d 943, 945 (D.Minn. 1999); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 44 F.Supp.2d 998, 1001 (D.Minn. 1999); Blair v. Source One......
-
Banovetz v. King
...which are within the referral jurisdiction of this Court, as provided by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See, Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 943, 945 (D.Minn.1999); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 44 F.Supp.2d 998, 1001 (D.Minn.1999); Blair v. Source......
-
Regents of University of Mn v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.
...Inc., 818 F.Supp. 276, 279 (D.Minn.1993). See also Blair v. Source One, 925 F.Supp. 617, 618 (D.Minn.1996); Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 943, 944 (D.Minn.1999). Defendant contends that this Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).......