## Facts

- Michael Bloomberg ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and operated his campaign through Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (the campaign).
- The campaign hired Melinda Hamilton and other campaign workers (the employees) to work on the presidential campaign.
- In March 2020, Bloomberg suspended the campaign, and the campaign terminated the employees.
- The employees sued the campaign in Texas state court seeking approximately $42,000 per employee in allegedly owed wages.
- The employees also sought additional damages in unspecified amounts, including items such as lost wages, lost health insurance, lost earning capacity, and mental anguish.
- The campaign removed the cases to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, contending that the amount in controversy for each employee exceeded $75,000.
- The employees moved to remand to state court and submitted signed declarations stating they would limit their recovery to $75,000.
- The campaign responded with evidence that each employee had already incurred about $10,000 in attorney’s fees and with evidence drawn from similar cases supporting the view that the employees’ unspecified damages would exceed $23,000 beyond the claimed $42,000 in wages.
- The district court denied remand and later entered summary judgment for the campaign on the merits.
- The employees appealed, challenging only the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction (the amount-in-controversy requirement).

## Issues

1. Whether the campaign proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of removal, each employee’s amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
2. Whether the employees’ post-removal declarations limiting damages to $75,000 defeated diversity jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the campaign carried its burden to show the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded $75,000 for each employee when the cases were removed.
- The court held the employees’ post-removal declarations capping damages did not eliminate jurisdiction that existed at removal.

## Legal Principles

- In a removed diversity case, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 when the plaintiff’s pleading does not demand a specific sum or appears to cap damages to avoid federal jurisdiction.
- The amount in controversy is assessed at the time of removal; later filings generally do not reduce the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes.
- Courts may consider summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy, including evidence supporting calculations of claimed wages and likely values of other claimed damages.
- Attorney’s fees may be included in the amount in controversy when they are recoverable under the applicable substantive law, and evidence of fees already incurred can support the jurisdictional calculation.
- Post-removal stipulations or declarations that attempt to limit recovery typically do not defeat diversity jurisdiction once the removing party shows the jurisdictional amount was in controversy at removal.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the campaign’s evidence of $42,000 in claimed wages, approximately $10,000 in attorney’s fees already incurred, and supported estimates for additional categories of damages showed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for each plaintiff at removal, and the employees’ later declarations limiting damages could not strip the federal courts of diversity jurisdiction.


Hamilton v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., 2021 WL 5272218 (2021)