Ramchandra v. Amtrak National Railroad

D. Massachusetts

Ramchandra v. Amtrak National Railroad

345 F. Supp. 2d 33, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23914, 2004 WL 2711720

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

DocketCIV.A. 02-40061-NMG

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 345 F. Supp. 2d 33 (Ramchandra v. Amtrak National Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramchandra v. Amtrak National Railroad, 345 F. Supp. 2d 33, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23914, 2004 WL 2711720 (D. Mass. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GORTON, District Judge.

On September 17, 2004, this Court issued an Order denying the motion for summary judgment of Amtrak National Railroad Corporation (“Amtrak”). At the same time, however, it instructed the parties to submit briefs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over diversity actions in which more than $75,000 is in controversy. In determining whether that jurisdictional minimum is met, “the sum claimed [in the complaint] by the plaintiff controls .... ” Stewart v. Tupperware Corp., 356 F.3d 335, 338 (1st Cir.2004). Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages of $24,999 and thus, on its face, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The fact that plaintiff, at one time, made a settlement demand in excess of the jurisdictional minimum does not alter the result. A settlement demand (or offer) is “relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiffs claim,” but it is not dispositive. Cohn D.V.M. v. Petsmart, Inc., 281, F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.2002). Amtrak offers no evidence to suggest that an initial demand by the plaintiff, rather than the $24,999 claimed in her complaint, reasonably estimates the value of plaintiffs claim. The Court is bound to construe strictly statutes conferring removal jurisdiction. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Nobles, 928 F.Supp. 1096, 1099 (M.D.Ala. *35 1996). Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, this case (Civil Action No. 02-ev-40061) is hereby REMANDED to the Massachusetts District Court Department of the Trial Court, Clinton Division.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GORTON, District Judge.

On September 17, 2004, this Court issued an Order denying the motion for summary judgment of Amtrak National Railroad Corporation (“Amtrak”). At the same time, however, it instructed the parties to submit briefs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over diversity actions in which more than $75,000 is in controversy. In determining whether that jurisdictional minimum is met, “the sum claimed [in the complaint] by the plaintiff controls .... ” Stewart v. Tupperware Corp., 356 F.3d 335, 338 (1st Cir.2004). Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages of $24,999 and thus, on its face, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The fact that plaintiff, at one time, made a settlement demand in excess of the jurisdictional minimum does not alter the result. A settlement demand (or offer) is “relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiffs claim,” but it is not dispositive. Cohn D.V.M. v. Petsmart, Inc., 281, F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.2002). Amtrak offers no evidence to suggest that an initial demand by the plaintiff, rather than the $24,999 claimed in her complaint, reasonably estimates the value of plaintiffs claim. The Court is bound to construe strictly statutes conferring removal jurisdiction. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Nobles, 928 F.Supp. 1096, 1099 (M.D.Ala. *35 1996). Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, this case (Civil Action No. 02-ev-40061) is hereby REMANDED to the Massachusetts District Court Department of the Trial Court, Clinton Division.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 F. Supp. 2d 33, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23914, 2004 WL 2711720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramchandra-v-amtrak-national-railroad-mad-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack