United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P.K.
HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court is Plaintiff Sean McFeeters's
(“McFeeters”) motion to remand (Doc. 8) and brief
in support (Doc. 9). Defendant Sykes Enterprises, Inc.
(“Sykes”) filed a response (Doc. 10). Sykes filed
a notice of removal (Doc. 1) on September 25, 2019, asserting
this Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1) because there was complete diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000.
McFeeters argues Sykes has not satisfied its burden to prove
the amount in controversy is sufficient for federal
jurisdiction and requests remand and attorney's fees.
“The
district courts of the United States . . . ‘are courts
of limited jurisdiction . . . possess[ing] only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.'” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,
552 (2005) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal courts must
strictly construe the federal removal statute and resolve any
ambiguities about federal jurisdiction in favor of remand.
Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
of London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir. 1997). A
defendant in state court may remove the case to federal court
if the defendant can demonstrate the federal court has
original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). In removal cases, the party asserting federal
jurisdiction has the burden of proof and must show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
requirement has been met. In re Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
Sales Practices Litig., 346, F.3d 830, 834 (8th
Cir. 2003). In determining the amount in controversy, the
Court looks first to the complaint and the “sum claimed
by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in
good faith.” See McClendon v. Chubb Corp.,
2011 WL 3555649 at *2 (W.D. Ark. 2011). Jurisdiction is
determined at the time of removal. See Hargis v. Access
Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 789 (8th Cir. 2012).
McFeeters's
complaint seeks relief for alleged violations of the Arkansas
Medical Marijuana Amendment, Amendment 98 of the Arkansas
Constitution, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 3, ¶
3). The complaint states “the plaintiff seeks no more
than $75, 000 in total monetary recovery in this matter,
including damages, lost wages, attorneys, and court
costs.” Id. McFeeters's complaint does not
state an amount in controversy sufficient for federal
jurisdiction. There is nothing in the record before the Court
to suggest this claim is not made in good faith.
In the
notice of removal, Sykes alleges the amount in controversy is
approximately $130, 794.20 and not less than $75, 000 as
claimed in the complaint. (Doc. 1, ¶ 40). As the party
asserting jurisdiction, Sykes has the burden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
is satisfied. Sykes contends that if McFeeters prevails on
his claims, he will be entitled to $31, 709 in back pay, $31,
709 in front pay, $30, 000 in compensatory damages, and $37,
367.20 in attorney's fees.
The
only evidence Sykes presented was a letter sent by Sykes to
McFeeters describing the job offer. (Doc. 1-2). According to
the letter, McFeeters was to be paid “$12.50 per hour,
plus additional incentive compensation of 3% of
[McFeeters's] monthly salary, and a robust benefits
package.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 19). Based on the hourly rate
and incentives, Sykes claims McFeeters would be potentially
entitled to back pay of $2, 266.00 per month from June 17,
2019 to August 20, 2020 for a total of $31, 709.00.
The
remainder of damages Sykes claims McFeeters is entitled to
are not supported by any evidence. Sykes only relies upon
case citations where damages for front pay, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees have been awarded. Sykes
does not allege any facts specific to this case that would
show McFeeters is entitled to front pay, other damages, or
attorney's fees under the precedent Sykes cites. Sykes is
unable to show that the $130, 794.20 damage amount alleged,
or any more than $75, 000, is in controversy. In its
response, Sykes again offers no evidence to support the
amount of damages claimed in the notice of removal. Because
Sykes has not presented any evidence of the amount in
controversy besides back pay, Sykes has failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
is greater than $75, 000.
IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Sean McFeeters's motion
to remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED, and the case is remanded to
the Crawford County Circuit Court. Plaintiff's request
for ...