Lexplug logoLexplug

Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
303 U.S. 283, 58 S. Ct. 586, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 295 (1938)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal jurisdiction, once it has properly attached in a case removed from state court, is not defeated by a plaintiff's subsequent amendment of the complaint that reduces the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum.


Facts:

  • Red Cab Co., an Indiana corporation, was subject to the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act.
  • St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., a Minnesota corporation, issued a 30-day insurance binder to Red Cab Co. to cover workers' compensation claims.
  • The contract required St. Paul to insure Red Cab Co. against loss from employee compensation claims and to handle required filings under the Act.
  • During the policy period, several of Red Cab Co.'s employees sustained injuries in the course of their employment and filed claims.
  • St. Paul was notified of the injuries and conducted investigations.
  • After the insurance contract expired, St. Paul denied liability under the binder and informed Red Cab Co. that it would not recognize any of the claims.
  • As a result, Red Cab Co. was forced to employ attorneys and medical assistants and pay for its employees' injury-related expenses.
  • Red Cab Co. claimed it was damaged in the sum of $4,000 due to St. Paul's refusal to honor the insurance contract.

Procedural Posture:

  • Red Cab Co. sued St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. in the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana (a state trial court), demanding $4,000.
  • St. Paul, a non-resident defendant, filed a timely petition to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana based on diversity jurisdiction.
  • After removal, Red Cab Co. filed a second amended complaint, still demanding $4,000, but attached an exhibit detailing actual expenses of only $1,380.89.
  • The U.S. District Court held a trial and entered judgment for Red Cab Co. for $1,162.98.
  • St. Paul, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the record showed the claim was for less than the $3,000 jurisdictional minimum, and it ordered the case remanded to the state court.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a plaintiff's reduction of the amount in controversy to a sum below the federal jurisdictional minimum, after a case has been properly removed from state to federal court, require the federal court to remand the case back to state court?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Roberts

No. A plaintiff's reduction of the amount claimed below the jurisdictional minimum after a proper removal does not oust the district court of jurisdiction. The status of a case for removal purposes is determined by the plaintiff's complaint at the time the petition for removal is filed. Events occurring after removal that reduce the amount recoverable, whether by the plaintiff's volition or otherwise, do not divest the court of jurisdiction once it has attached. The rule that the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls is based on the good faith of the claim, and to justify remand, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim was never for the jurisdictional amount. To allow a plaintiff to defeat a defendant's statutory right of removal by subsequent amendment would subject that right to the plaintiff's caprice. If a plaintiff wishes to avoid federal court, they may do so by suing for less than the jurisdictional amount from the outset.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'time-of-removal' rule for establishing the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction. It prevents plaintiffs from engaging in forum manipulation by amending their pleadings to defeat federal jurisdiction after a defendant has already exercised their statutory right to removal. The case reinforces the 'legal certainty' test, creating a high bar for dismissing or remanding cases based on the amount claimed, thereby providing stability and predictability in federal removal procedure. This precedent ensures that a defendant's right to remove a case is not an illusory one that can be nullified at the plaintiff's whim post-removal.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.