Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: Amount in controversy

Civil Practice – Diversity Jurisdiction – Amount in Controversy – Insurance Coverage — $50,000 Limit (access required)

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sparkleberry Hill Apartments The plaintiff-insurer seeks a declaration that it need not indemnify the defendant-insureds in an underlying claim relating to mold in one of the insureds’ apartments. If the endorsement in question did apply, it would only provide $50,000 of coverage. Defendants have shown that plaintiff’s claim does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This case is dismissed without prejudice.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Federal Jurisdiction – Diversity – Corporate – ‘Nerve Center’ – Amount in Controversy – Punitive Damages (access required)

McClurkin v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. Even though the defendant-corporation has a facility in South Carolina, since it was incorporated in Delaware and has its “nerve center” in Illinois, defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois but not of South Carolina. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court is denied. A corporation’s principal place of business is where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Diversity Jurisdiction – Amount in Controversy – Plaintiff’s Claims – Time of Removal – Counterclaims – Suspended Corporate Status (access required)

No Regrets Properties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Sports Pub Concepts, Inc. Even if defendant's counterclaims could be aggregated with plaintiff's claims to reach the jurisdictional amount in controversy in a removal case, the amount in controversy must be considered as of the dates of the filing of the complaint and the filing of the notice of removal. Defendant had not filed its counterclaims as of the date of removal, and plaintiffs have disclaimed any award in excess of $74,900; therefore, the amount in controversy does not support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court is granted.

Read More »