Snow v. Mike Bloomberg 2020

Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 11, 2021
No. 21-10576 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Melinda Hamilton,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 21-10577
_____________
Argunda Jefferson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee,
consolidated with
Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 21-10576
c/w Nos. 21-10577 & 21-10578
_____________
No. 21-10578
_____________
Gregory Snow,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 4:20-CV-488,
4:20-CV-489, 4:20-CV-490
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
To remove a diversity action to federal court, the amount in
controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Ex-employees of Mike
Bloomberg 2020 sued the campaign in Texas state court seeking $42,000 in
owed wages and a litany of unquantified damages. But they also stated that
they sought less than $75,000. The campaign removed the case to federal
court, arguing that the number of claims and prior representations of counsel
demonstrated each suit exceeded $75,000 in value. We agree. Because the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 21-10576
c/w Nos. 21-10577 & 21-10578
campaign met its burden of demonstrating the amount in controversy was
met and its ex-employees failed to demonstrate to a legal certainty that the
amount was not satisfied, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
We AFFIRM.
I.
In late 2019 and early 2020, Michael Bloomberg sought the
Democratic nomination for President of the United States. He designated
“Mike Bloomberg 2020” as his official campaign. In preparation for the
Texas Democratic primary, the campaign hired the plaintiffs to work in
various campaign roles. In March 2020, Bloomberg announced he was
suspending his presidential campaign. The campaign subsequently notified
the plaintiffs that it was terminating their employment. Each of the ex-
employees filed suit in Texas state court against the campaign for damages.
The campaign removed each of the actions to federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction. After a failed attempt by the plaintiffs to remand the suits, the
court granted the campaign summary judgment on all the claims asserted by
its ex-employees. The plaintiffs now appeal, challenging only the district
court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
II.
This court reviews a determination of jurisdiction de novo. White v.
FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 674 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Allen v. R & H Oil &
Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995)). Generally, jurisdiction must
exist at the time of removal. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th
Cir. 2001) (citing Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 686 (5th Cir.
2000). Under this general rule, in a diversity action the removing party must
demonstrate complete diversity of the parties and that the amount in
controversy is more than $75,000. See De Aguilar v. Boeing, Co., 47 F.3d
1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3
Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 21-10576
c/w Nos. 21-10577 & 21-10578
The complete diversity of the parties is not at issue here; rather, the
plaintiffs challenge whether their claims crossed the $75,000 threshold at the
time of removal. How we determine if the amount in controversy is met
depends on whether the plaintiffs “demanded a specific amount of damages”
in their complaints. Scarlott v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 883, 888 (5th
Cir. 2014). If a specific amount was demanded, the amount stated in the
complaint is dispositive if it “is apparently made in good faith.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 748 F.2d
1058, 1069 (5th Cir. 1989)). When indeterminate damages are alleged, “the
removing defendant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional
requirement].” Id. (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir.
1993)).
Here, each of the plaintiffs alleged they sought “monetary relief of
$75,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses,
pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees.” However, in their complaints, the
plaintiffs made specific allegations that each was “due $42,000 in wages plus
lost health insurance benefits.” They additionally alleged damages
“including, lost wages, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, emotional pain
and suffering, lost employment benefits, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of
life, damage to professional reputation, and other damages.” Upon removal,
the burden on the campaign was to demonstrate that the additional damages
sought by its ex-employees exceeded $33,000 in value per plaintiff.
The campaign produced demand letters from its ex-employees’
attorney asserting that he had already incurred $10,000 in legal fees for each
plaintiff. The campaign also presented analogous evidence from similar
cases, some handled by its ex-employees’ counsel, to argue that the plaintiffs’
other categories of damages were patently worth more than $23,000. We
conclude that the campaign thereby satisfied its “burden of proving . . . that
4
Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 21-10576
c/w Nos. 21-10577 & 21-10578
the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional threshold].” Scarlott,
771 F.3d at 888 (citing De Aguilar, 11 F.3d at 58); see White, 319 F.3d at 675(affirming district court’s determination that “the lengthy list of
compensatory and punitive damages sought by [plaintiff], when combined
with attorney’s fees, would exceed $75,000” (citing Allen, 63 F.3d at 1336)).
But the inquiry does not necessarily end here. Even if the removing
party demonstrates the amount in controversy is met, a plaintiff can show
“that, as a matter of law, it is certain” that the jurisdictional amount will not
be recovered. De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1411. However, this is “not a burden-
shifting exercise.” Id. at 1412. A “plaintiff must make all information known
at the time” the complaint is filed. Id. The ex-employees argue that under
Texas law, they could be limited to recovering less than $75,000. This is
correct. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47 a maximum recovery
amount can be set by the court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47. But at the time of
removal, no such bar had been instituted, so plaintiffs’ argument fails.
The plaintiffs also assert that they each legally bound themselves to
seek less than $75,000 in damages. They attached signed declarations to
their motions to remand stating, “I irrevocably limit my recovery of damages
for the harms and losses I have sustained as set forth in my First Amended
Petition to $75,000.” But our precedent states that “[l]itigants who want to
prevent removal must file a binding stipulation or affidavit with their
complaints; once a defendant has removed the case, St. Paul Mercury Indem.
Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938), makes later filings irrelevant.”
De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re
Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d 355, 356 (7th Cir. 1992)). 1 Because the plaintiffs’
1
In limited circumstances later filings could be considered, i.e., “if the basis for
jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d
880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). But at the time the campaign removed these cases, the amount
5
Case: 21-10576 Document: 00516089831 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 21-10576
c/w Nos. 21-10577 & 21-10578
signed declarations were not included with their complaints, prior to the time
of removal, they are insufficient to meet the legal certainty standard.
III.
The campaign met its burden of demonstrating the amount in
controversy was met when it removed these cases to federal court. By
contrast, its ex-employees failed to show, by legal certainty, that they would
not recover damages meeting the jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, the
district court properly had diversity jurisdiction over these actions.
AFFIRMED.
in controversy was not ambiguous because it was readily substantiated by the damages
alleged in plaintiffs’ complaints and their counsel’s pre-removal correspondence to the
campaign.
6