## Facts

- Gilbert and Marygrace Arcangel stayed as guests at a Marriott-branded hotel owned by Huntington Atlantic Hotels, LLC.
- The Arcangels alleged they were bitten by bedbugs while staying in their room.
- After the Arcangels complained, the hotel involved its pest-control contractor, Ecolab, Inc., to address the alleged infestation.
- The Arcangels alleged Ecolab failed to properly inspect and exterminate the bedbugs.
- The Arcangels sued in Maryland state court and asserted:
  - Count I: negligence against Huntington for placing them in an allegedly infested room;
  - Count II: violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) against Huntington, based on an implied representation that the room was fit to occupy; and
  - Count III: negligence against Ecolab for allegedly failing to properly inspect and exterminate.
- The complaint sought $75,000 in damages for Count I and $75,000 in damages for Count II against Huntington.
- Huntington and Ecolab removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because the two $75,000 demands against Huntington totaled $150,000.
- The Arcangels moved to remand, disputing that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.

## Issues

1. Whether the removing defendants carried their burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
2. Whether the $75,000 damages requests in the negligence count and the MCPA count against Huntington could be aggregated, or instead reflected alternate theories seeking one recovery for the same alleged bedbug-related injury.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand.
- The court concluded the removing defendants did not establish that more than $75,000 was in controversy.
- The court treated the negligence and MCPA counts against Huntington as alternate routes to recover for the same alleged harm, rather than separate claims supporting separate, stackable awards for amount-in-controversy purposes.
- Because the defendants relied principally on adding the two per-count $75,000 demands, and that addition did not establish a legally supported amount exceeding $75,000, the court returned the case to state court.

## Legal Principles

- A removing defendant bears the burden to show federal subject-matter jurisdiction, including satisfaction of the amount-in-controversy requirement in a diversity removal.
- The amount in controversy is evaluated based on the record at the time of removal, and doubts about removal jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand.
- A single plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant to reach the jurisdictional threshold only when the pleading places separate, non-duplicative recoveries in dispute; amounts tied to alternate theories for a single injury are not added together simply because they appear in separate counts.
- When a complaint’s damages requests by count appear directed to one compensatory recovery for one set of alleged injuries, the removing party must provide more than arithmetic addition of per-count demands to prove the jurisdictional minimum.

## Conclusion

The district court remanded the action to Maryland state court because Huntington and Ecolab did not show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; the court viewed the $75,000 negligence and $75,000 MCPA demands against Huntington as alternate theories seeking one recovery for the same alleged bedbug-related injury rather than separate sums that could be aggregated to create federal diversity jurisdiction.


Arcangel v. Huntington Atlantic Hotels, LLC, 2018 WL 5885517 (2018)