## Facts

- Homeowners living near a rock quarry in Richmond County, North Carolina sued the quarry operator for alleged dust, flying rocks, noise, and blasting shocks affecting their property and well-being.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law nuisance and trespass claims and sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction to stop the alleged ongoing interference.
- Consistent with state pleading practice, each plaintiff alleged damages “in excess of $10,000” for (1) property damage from blasting shocks, (2) trespass/nuisance from dust and rocks, and (3) punitive damages, plus injunctive relief.
- The defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending the complaint showed only “in excess of $30,000” in money damages per plaintiff and therefore did not satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
- To oppose remand, the defendant submitted evidence (including an affidavit) describing the economic impact of an injunction that would restrict or halt quarry operations.

## Issues

1. Whether diversity jurisdiction’s amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied where each plaintiff pleaded only “in excess of $10,000” per damages category but also sought injunctive relief that could impose substantial compliance costs on the defendant.
2. Whether, given an indeterminate complaint, the removing defendant could rely on evidence outside the pleadings to prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to remand.
- Because the complaint did not specify a maximum recovery, the defendant had to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court considered not only pleaded damages but also the value of the requested injunction, measured by the cost to the defendant of compliance.
- The defendant’s evidentiary showing regarding the potential cost of restricting or shutting down quarry operations supported a finding that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for at least one plaintiff.
- The court permitted consideration of the defendant’s evidentiary submissions in resolving the jurisdictional dispute.

## Legal Principles

- When a complaint is indeterminate as to the amount in controversy, a removing defendant may establish the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence using materials outside the pleadings, including affidavits.
- The amount in controversy in diversity cases may include the value of injunctive relief, measured by either (a) the value of the benefit to the plaintiff or (b) the cost to the defendant of complying with the injunction.
- In multi-plaintiff diversity cases, at least one plaintiff generally must satisfy the jurisdictional threshold on an individual claim basis absent a single, undivided interest.

## Conclusion

The court kept the case in federal court, holding that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 once the requested injunctive relief was valued by its likely compliance cost to the quarry operator, together with the plaintiffs’ pleaded damages.


Hoffman v. Vulcan Materials Co., 19 F. Supp. 2d 475 (M.D.N.C. 1998)