Charleston v. Allstate ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION MELVIN CHARLESTON PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-634-KHJ-LGI ALLSTATE DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Melvin Charleston’s [10] Motion to Remand. The motion is denied for the following reasons. Charleston was in a car wreck in January 2021. Compl. [1-1] at 3 ¶ 3. He collided with an uninsured driver who failed to yield to him. Charleston sued his insurance company, Defendant Allstate, in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. at 3–4. He contends Allstate breached its insurance agreement by failing to pay the full amount of his damages, which exceed Allstate’s uninsured motorist policy. at 4 ¶ 5. The state-court complaint does not include an amount in controversy, but the attached uninsured motorist policy shows bodily-injury coverage of up to $25,000 for Charleston’s injuries and up to $50,000 for property damage. at 5–8. During the discovery process, Allstate propounded admissions to Charleston, seeking to clarify (1) his claims against it and (2) the damages he seeks. [13] at 4. Charleston’s response conveyed he seeks extra-contractual damages and brings a bad-faith claim against Allstate. Admis. Resps. [1-2] at 1. It also stated that Charleston is entitled to over $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs if he proves his claims. After receiving Charleston’s responses, Allstate removed the case to this Court. Notice Removal [1]. Charleston now seeks to remand this case, contending the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied. [10]. Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) when “the face of the complaint supports the assertion of federal [subject-matter] jurisdiction.” , 63 F.3d 1326, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995). When, as here, a party premises subject-matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) controls. Section 1332(a) provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” “The party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing both that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000.” , 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003). To determine whether jurisdiction exists, the district court “consider[s] the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.” , 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). “Any ambiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand.” But, in Mississippi, targeted state-court discovery may be used to figure out an uncertain amount in controversy. , No. 3:18-CV-545, 2018 WL 6332640, at *1–2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 4, 2018) (discussing and rejecting the Northern District of Mississippi’s departure from the rule). Charleston’s sole argument for remand is that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)’s amount- in-controversy requirement is not satisfied. [10]. His argument fails, however, because he admitted in his response to Allstate’s Requests for Admissions that he seeks more than $75,000 in damages, exclusive of interest and costs. [1-2] at 1– 2 Charleston also admits he brings a bad-faith claim against Allstate and also seeks extracontractual damages. at 1; , 2:01- CV-202, 2005 WL 1530342, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2001) (noting “federal courts in Mississippi have consistently held that a claim for an unspecified amount of punitive damages under Mississippi law is deemed to exceed the amount necessary for federal jurisdiction”); , 3:18-CV-464, 2018 WL 4288724, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 18, 2017) (remanding when plaintiff denied seeking over $75,000, exclusive of interest in costs, and made unspecified punitive damages demand). Whether or not the Court includes Charleston’s unspecified claim for extracontractual damages, the amount-in-controversy is satisfied because he admits he seeks more than $75,000 in contractual damages, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have changed the outcome. Plaintiff Melvin Charleston’s [10] Motion to Remand is DENIED. The parties shall immediately notify the assigned Magistrate Judge of this Order and submit a proposed order lifting the stay to her chambers. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 16th day of May, 2023. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE