The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
HIGHWAY 29, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:21-cv-300-ECM
) (WO)
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
The Plaintiff Highway 29, LLC (“Highway 29”) filed this declaratory judgment
action against defendants Lee County Commission, and individual commission members1
(collectively “Defendants”), seeking to enjoin the Defendants from holding a special
election on May 18, 2021. (Doc. 1). The Plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to prevent the May 18, 2021 election. (Id.)
The Plaintiff invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332.2 The Court has jurisdiction over actions involving citizens of different states
provided that all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants, see Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7
U.S. 267 (1806), and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1 The Plaintiff sued, in their official capacities, Lee County Commissioners: Sarah Brown, Doug Cannon,
William English, Robert Ham, Richard LaGrand, Sr. and Gary Long.
2 Although the Plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Act
does not confer jurisdiction upon a federal court. Borden v. Katzman, 881 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1989).
Thus, a suit brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act must have an independent source of jurisdiction,
such as diversity jurisdiction. Id.
Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested, and the Court concludes that venue
properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
(Doc. 1). Because the Court has an independent obligation to inquire into its jurisdiction,
on April 29, 2021, the Court ordered the parties to specifically address whether the amount
in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum for the Court to have jurisdiction over this
matter.3 (Doc. 21). The parties filed responses to the Court’s order. See Docs. 25 & 26.
The Plaintiff reiterated its position that from its perspective, “the value of the objects of
this litigation exceed the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” and thus, the
Court has diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 26 at 6). The Defendants assert that the “Plaintiff
has not adequately carried its burden of establishing the requisite amount in controversy.”
(Doc. 25 at 1). For the reasons which follow, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has
failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and thus, it does not have
jurisdiction over this matter.4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Dudley v. Eli Lilley & Co., 778 F.3d 909, 911 (11th
3 In the complaint, the Plaintiff only alleges causes of action under state law, and only invokes this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4 Also pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion for more
definite statement (doc. 17). Because the Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction over this case, it
does not have jurisdiction to resolve the motion.
2
Cir. 2014) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
The Court is “‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United
States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them
by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1994)). In light of their limited jurisdiction, federal courts are “obligated to inquire
into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Charon-Bolero v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2005). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies
outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the
party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff is the “owner of a parcel of real property . . . located adjacent to
Highway 29 North in Beat 13 of the unincorporated Beulah area of Lee County, Alabama.”
(Doc. 1 at 5, para. 15) (internal quotation marks removed). According to the Plaintiff, it
leased the property to Creekwood Resources, LLC. (Id. at 6, para. 19). Creekwood intends
to develop the property as a granite quarry. (Id.)
As Creekwood moved forward to seek the necessary permits, citizens of Lee
County, Alabama, who oppose the development of the quarry, petitioned the Lee County
Commission to conduct a special election to determine whether the Lee County Planning
Commission should have authority over Beat 13. (Id. at 8-9, para. 31). Two petitions
3
seeking a special election were filed with the Lee County Commission. (Id. at 10-11, para.
35). The Lee County Commission set a “special election for zoning in Beat 13” for May
18, 2021. (Id. at 11-12, paras. 38 & 40).
On April 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this action and a motion for preliminary
injunction.5
DISCUSSION
To establish diversity jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must not only demonstrate that the
parties are completely diverse, but, that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000
jurisdictional minimum set by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief to prevent the special election from
proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 based on “the monetary value of the object of this litigation—the intended use of
a parcel of real property located in Lee County, Alabama.” (Doc. 1 at 4, para. 13). “For
amount in controversy purposes, the value of injunctive or declaratory relief is the ‘value
of the object of the litigation’ measured from the plaintiff’s perspective.” Morrison v.
Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1268 (11th Cir. 2000). See also Ericsson GE Mobile
Comm., Inc. v. Motorola Comm. & Electronics, Inc., 120 F.3d 216, 218 (11th Cir. 1997).
5 The Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order which the Court denied on April 22,
2021. (Doc. 4).
4
The Plaintiff offers two bases for asserting the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. First, the Plaintiff argues that of the Lee County Commission’s $279,250 election
budget for 2021, $105,250 is allocated to “Election.” (Doc. 26 at 3). The Plaintiff further
speculates that although “there was a national general election on November 3, 2020[,]” …
“it is likely safe to assume that not every penny was exhausted from the budget.” (Doc. 26
at 3). Thus, according to the Plaintiff, the cost of the election exceeds $75,000.
Notwithstanding the wholly speculative nature of this argument, “[t]he value of the
requested injunctive relief is the monetary value of the benefit that would flow to the
plaintiff if the injunction were granted.” Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1077
(11th Cir. 2000). Because the cost of the election would not flow to the Plaintiff if the
injunction was granted, it cannot be the measure for determining the amount of
controversy.
The Plaintiff also argues that because the value of the property is $203,500, which
exceeds the requisite amount in controversy, the jurisdictional threshold is met. (Doc. 26
at 5). This argument, however, fails.
Although a diversity suit should not be dismissed unless “it is
apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover
[the requisite amount in controversy],” see St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586,
590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938), this liberal standard for jurisdictional
pleading is not a license for conjecture. In light of the
federalism and separation of powers concerns implicated by
diversity jurisdiction, federal courts are obligated to strictly
construe the statutory grant of diversity jurisdiction, or as the
Supreme Court has put it, to “scrupulously confine their own
jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has
5
defined.” Snyder, 394 U.S. at 340, 89 S.Ct. at 1059
(quoting Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270, 54 S.Ct. 700, 703,
78 L.Ed. 1248 (1934)). We think this obligation requires a
court to insure that the benefits resulting from an injunction are
not counted where they are so uncertain that the court cannot
reasonably determine whether the amount of money placed in
controversy by the present suit exceeds $75,000. Accordingly,
a plaintiff who bases diversity jurisdiction on the value of
injunctive relief must show that the benefit to be obtained from
the injunction is “sufficiently measurable and certain to satisfy
the . . . amount in controversy requirement . . .. Ericsson,120
F.3d at 221.1
Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1268–69 (footnote in original).
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin an election, the result of which is currently unknowable
and which, at this juncture, has no bearing on the value of the property. It is the outcome
of the election, not the holding of it, which could affect the value of the property. The
Plaintiff’s valuation of the injunction is based on the possibility that the special election
will require Beat 13, and thusthe subject property, to come under the auspices of the Lee
1 The footnote in the original reads as follows:
In Ericsson, this Court held that the value of an injunction was “too
speculative and immeasurable” to establish the requisite amount in
controversy. Ericsson, 120 F.3d at 221–22. The only remedy available to
Ericsson was an injunction invalidating Motorola's contract to provide a
communications system to the City of Birmingham, and thus, the benefit
of this injunction to Ericsson was simply the chance to rebid on the
contract. See id. at 221. Because all the injunction could do was void
Motorola's contract, Ericsson would benefit monetarily from the
injunction only if (1) the City elected to rebid the contract, which it
apparently was not required to do, and (2) after the contract was rebid, the
City selected Ericsson's communications system. See id. Based on these
contingencies, the Ericsson Court concluded that the value of the
injunctive relief was not “sufficiently measurable and certain to satisfy
the ... amount in controversy requirement of the diversity statute.” Id.
6
County Planning Commission. The mere fact that the election may result in the property
being regulated by the Lee County Planning Commission does not provide the Court with
any measure of the value of the injunction and is purely speculative. Consequently, the
Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 and that diversity jurisdiction exists.
CONCLUSION
Because the Plaintiff fails to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
It is further
ORDERED that the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction set for May
10, 2021, is CANCELED.
DONE this 7th day of May, 2021.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7