## Facts

- Shirley K. Rogers alleged she was injured after tripping over a wooden pallet left in an aisle at a Wal-Mart store in Memphis, Tennessee.
- In October 1997, Rogers sued in Tennessee state court, seeking roughly $950,000; Wal-Mart removed on diversity grounds.
- In the first action, Rogers’s interrogatory responses estimated damages at about $447,000; the parties later stipulated to dismissal without prejudice, and the federal court dismissed the case without prejudice in October 1998.
- In February 1999, Rogers refiled the same negligence claim in Tennessee state court, this time pleading damages “not exceeding $75,000.”
- Wal-Mart removed again, relying on Rogers’s prior interrogatory damage estimate to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- After removal, Rogers moved to remand and filed an affidavit and stipulation stating she would not seek or accept more than $75,000 and would not amend to request more.
- Wal-Mart sought costs and attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) based on the previously dismissed federal action.
- The district court denied remand, awarded Rule 41(d) costs and fees, stayed the case pending payment, and later dismissed without prejudice when Rogers did not pay.

## Issues

1. In a removed diversity case, can a plaintiff defeat federal jurisdiction through post-removal stipulations or amendments reducing the damages sought below $75,000?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by awarding costs and attorneys’ fees under Rule 41(d) and dismissing the refiled action without prejudice when the plaintiff failed to pay?

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of remand, holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal and is not defeated by post-removal reductions in the damages sought.
- The court held that Rogers’s earlier interrogatory responses estimating damages around $447,000 supported that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at removal.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Rule 41(d) award of costs and attorneys’ fees and affirmed the dismissal without prejudice for nonpayment, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction in a removed case is assessed based on the amount in controversy at the time of removal; later events generally do not divest jurisdiction that properly attached.
- A plaintiff cannot obtain remand by post-removal stipulations or amendments lowering the damages sought below the jurisdictional threshold.
- Prior sworn statements regarding damages (including interrogatory answers) may be used as evidence of the amount in controversy.
- Under Rule 41(d), when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action and refiles the same claim, the court may order payment of costs (and, in the court’s discretion, attorneys’ fees) from the prior action and may stay or dismiss the refiled action for noncompliance.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s post-removal effort to cap damages below $75,000 does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold at removal, and it upheld Rule 41(d) costs and fees and dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay those ordered amounts.


Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000)