Lee v. Altamil Corp., 78-568-Civ-J-M.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-568-Civ-J-M.,78-568-Civ-J-M. |
| Citation | 457 F. Supp. 979 |
| Parties | David M. LEE, Plaintiff, v. ALTAMIL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant. Lynn L. LEE, Plaintiff, v. ALTAMIL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Winston W. Jacobo, Airth, Sellers & Lewis, Live Oak, Fla., for plaintiffs.
John R. McDonough, Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, Fla., for defendant.
This cause was initiated in the Florida courts in August of 1977, and the present defendant, Altamil Corporation, was substituted for the original defendant by virtue of an amended complaint served on Altamil on November 3, 1977. The plaintiff's claim is based upon "serious permanent injury" sustained by the plaintiff as an alleged proximate result of a defective component of a bulk feed tank and conveying system sold by the defendant. Substantively, this case is grounded on state law.
Following the filing of this case in state court, the defendant answered the complaint and both parties proceeded with discovery as usual. The results of the parties' discovery measures indicated that the plaintiff's injuries were in fact substantial. Specifically, the plaintiff's response, in early October of 1977, to the defendant's Request to Produce contained a letter from a Dr. Edward J. Sullivan confirming the plaintiff's complete disability as of February 18, 1977; the plaintiff's response to the defendant's interrogatories stated that prior to the accident the plaintiff's average weekly income was $215.00; and the deposition of the plaintiff, taken on June 7, 1978, revealed another physician's finding of disability and fixed the plaintiff's present age at thirty-five.
On July 7, 1978, the defendant served upon the plaintiff a Request for Admissions asking (inter alia) that the plaintiff admit or deny that the amount in controversy in this cause exceeds $10,000. The plaintiff did not respond within thirty days and, as a result under state law, the request was deemed admitted as of August 11, 1978.
The cause is now before this Court on the defendant's petition for removal of the cause to federal court, filed on August 29, 1978, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1976). There is no question that complete diversity exists between the parties. The plaintiff does challenge the removal petition, however, on the basis that it was not filed in a timely fashion. In the Court's view, the plaintiff's position is the correct one, and accordingly the defendant's petition for removal will be denied.
Id. The defendant's position is that the case stated in the initial pleading did not appear to be removable, and that its Request for Admission, deemed admitted as of August 11, 1978, was the first "pleading, motion, order or other paper" from which it could be ascertained that the case was removable. Since this is a diversity case, the jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1976), requires a $10,000 amount in controversy and, in essence, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Dow Chem. Co.
...Co., 621 F. Supp. 1005 (D. Nev. 1985); Booty v. Shoney's Inc., 872 F. Supp. 1524 (E.D. La. 1995). See also, Lee v. Altamil Corp., 457 F. Supp. 979 (D. Fla. 1978) (discovery documents revealing thatamount in controversy exceeded jurisdictional amount constituted "other papers" under § 1446(b......
-
McPhatter v. Sweitzer
...was untimely when filed more than thirty days after defendant received first paper revealing grounds for removal); Lee v. Altamil Corp., 457 F.Supp. 979, 981 (M.D.Fla.1978) (where discovery documents revealed basis for federal jurisdiction and were received prior to plaintiff's answers to d......
-
Groesbeck Investments, Inc. v. Smith, 02-70058.
...on notice that the case could be removed. 890 F.Supp. at 1034. In support of its argument, Harmony Homes relied on Lee v. Altamil Corp., 457 F.Supp. 979 (M.D.Fla.1978). Lee was a case which involved diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and the issue of satisfaction of the amount in controv......
-
Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
...v. Kraft, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 127 (S.D.Fla.1985); Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 537 F.Supp. 244 (S.D.Fla.1982); Lee v. Altamil Corp., 457 F.Supp. 979 (M.D.Fla.1978). Moreover, a $10,000.00 jurisdictional minimum governed all of the cited cases. The present jurisdictional minimum of $5......
-
Amount in controversy and removal: current trends and strategic considerations.
...v. Wilson Foods Corp., 711 F.supp. 624 (N.D. Ga. 1989); Richman v. Zimmer, 644 F.Supp. 540 (S.D. Fla. 1986); 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.Sup......
-
The 30-day removal time limit: when does the clock start ticking?
...are several earlier cases which appear to be in conflict with the above-stated guidelines for removal. In Lee v. Altamil Corporation, 457 F. Supp. 979 (M.D. Fla. 1978); Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 537 F. Supp. 244 (S.D. Fla. 1982); Estevez-Gonzalez v. Kraft, Inc., 606 F. Supp.......