Hatfield v. Wilson

Decision Date05 October 2012
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-0944
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
PartiesJAN BARRY HATFIELD, Plaintiff, v. CLARKE WILSON, JR. and TURMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a limited liability company, Defendants.
MEMORADUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jan Barry Hatfield's motion to amend the pleadings (ECF No. 36). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owe damages for breach of Plaintiff's employment contract. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks the following relief in the ad damnum clause:

a. Compensatory damages for the balance of employment salary due unto him in and for a principal sum of $74,000.00;
b. Pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided by law;
c. Costs, including reasonable and statutory attorney fees; and
d. Such other and further relief as to which the Plaintiff may be deemed entitled.

Defendants removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which permit removal to federal court for cases involving citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff then moved to remand the case, arguing that removal was not proper because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand, stating that the amount in controversy was not limited to the relief sought in the ad damnum clause, and that the Court could determine independently the amount in controversy. ECF No. 14. This Court also noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order that although Plaintiff completed an affidavit purporting to limit recovery to $74,000, that affidavit did not defeat federal jurisdiction and did not justify remand because the affidavit was completed after removal rather than before. Id.

Plaintiff has timely moved the Court for leave to amend his pleadings, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff's "principal reason" for amending is to change the amount of relief sought from $74,000 to over $84,000,1 which he claims more accurately reflects the amount of damages he believes he is owed. In support of his motion, Plaintiff points out that he only limited his prayer for recovery to $74,000 in order for his case to remain in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, which was his forum of choice. Moreover, he has always been honest and open about this purpose. No longer being in the forum of his choice, after having tried to remand his case, he now hopes to seek an increased amount of damages.

Defendant Turman Construction Company argues in opposition that Plaintiff's attempt to amend is in bad faith because Plaintiff's earlier limitation of his recovery, solely in an attempt to keep the case in state court, was a manipulation of the judicial process. Also, Defendant argues that granting the motion to amend would cause substantial prejudice. Plaintiff has been aware of the true amount of damages due for some time, Defendant argues, and has not justified his delay in seeking to amend his pleadings. Because additional discovery would be needed and because Turman could not address such amendments in the earlier rejected motion to dismiss, prejudice would result.

Contrary to Defendant's argument, Plaintiff's motion to amend is not in bad faith. Plaintiff has always been forthright that the reason for limiting his damages was to stay in the forum of his choice. Plaintiff challenged the removal of the case to federal court, further making clear his desire to remain in the Cabell County Court. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the motion for remand, this Court noted that it was not limited to the ad damnum clause in determining the amount in controversy. Strawn v. AT&T Mobility, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 599, 603 (S.D. W. Va. 2007) (citing McCoy v. Erie Ins. Co., 147 F. Supp. 2d 481, 484-86 (S.D. W. Va. 2001)), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008); White v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 861 F. Supp. 25, 27 (S.D. W. Va. 1994) (citing 14A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3725 at 423-24 (1985)). While Defendant points to case law supporting its argument against amendment, see De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1995) and Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2006), those cases are distinguishable because they deal with the amount in controversy and "bad...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT