The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTONIO BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Case No. 10-1227 (RJL)
)
COLUMBIA SUSSEX )
CORPORATION, et al., )
)
De&ndanb. )
MEMORA~ORDER
(AugustZ.t' , 2010) [#7]
On February 2, 2010, plaintiff Antonio Brown ("plaintiff') filed a two-count
complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging assault and battery
and defamation and/or defamation per se. See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. C. Plaintiff requested
compensatory damages of $50,000 and punitive damages of $50,000, in addition to any
other appropriate relief, for each count. Id. The defendants were served on April 2,
2010. Superior Court Documents [Dkt. # 5]. On July 20, 2010, approximately 109 days
after service, the defendants removed the action to this court, invoking diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Notice of Removal [Dkt. #1]. Plaintiff now
moves to remand this action back to Superior Court.
Removal statutes are to be strictly construed. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.
Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941); LaPoint v. Mid-Atlantic Settlement Servs., 256 F. Supp.
2d 1,3 (D.D.C. 2003). To be timely, a defendant must file notice of removal within 30
days of service, or, if the initial pleading was not removable, within 30 days of receipt "of
1
a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
The defendants argue that they first learned this case was removable on July 8, 2010,
when they received plaintiffs answers to their requests for admissions, in which he
denied that his damages did not exceed $75,000. Def.'s Opp'n 4. However, plaintiffs
initial complaint claimed $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive
damages. Even disregarding punitive damages-which "may generally be included when
calculating the amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)," Wexler v. United Air
Lines, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 2d 150, 154 (D.D.C. 2007) (citation omitted)-an amount in
controversy in excess of$75,000 was readily apparent from plaintiffs complaint.
Accordingly, because the removal was untimely, plaintiffs motion to remand is
GRANTED. However, because the Court is not prepared to conclude, based on the
record, that the defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removing this
action, plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED.
F or the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiffs Motion to Remand [#7] is GRANTED. It is
further
ORDERED that the above-captioned action be remanded to the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia.
SO ORDERED.
,
~
RICHA J. EON
United States District Judge
2