## Facts

- Zelma Troupe, a Georgia citizen, sued C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (d/b/a Piggly Wiggly) for negligence arising from a slip-and-fall on defendant’s premises.
- The complaint alleged “severe physical injuries” and “excruciating and severe physical distress” and sought medical expenses “in excess of $13,637.00.”
- The complaint also sought unspecified special and general damages (including mental and physical pain and suffering), punitive damages, and litigation costs.
- Defendant removed the case from Georgia state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
- The notice of removal included medical records indicating the fall aggravated a pre-existing back condition and caused “unrelenting pain for more than a year” not controlled by medication.
- Defendant also submitted information that plaintiff was self-employed cleaning homes and reduced her workload due to the injury.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, disputing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and seeking fees and costs for removal.

## Issues

1. Whether defendant met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded $75,000 where the complaint did not demand a specific total sum.
2. Whether the court could rely on evidence submitted with the notice of removal (including medical records and work-impact evidence) to determine the amount in controversy.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to remand.
- The court held defendant carried its burden to show that, if plaintiff prevailed, her damages would more likely than not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum.
- The case remained in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant removing on diversity grounds bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy.
- When the complaint does not specify a sum certain, the removing defendant may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is more likely than not the damages exceed $75,000.
- Removal is proper if (1) it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, or (2) the notice of removal provides evidence showing the claimed damages likely exceed the threshold.
- In assessing amount in controversy, courts may consider the nature and extent of alleged injuries, claimed pain and suffering, alleged loss of earning capacity, and exposure to punitive damages, not merely the itemized medical bills pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court refused to treat the complaint’s stated medical expenses as dispositive and, considering the pleaded categories of damages plus medical and work-impact evidence submitted with the removal papers, found it more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, so remand was denied.


Troupe v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-00098 (CAR), 2009 WL 1938787 (M.D. Ga. July 2, 2009)