R. STAN BAKER, District Judge.
This proposed class-action lawsuit comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its June 8, 2018 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand this case to the Superior Court of Bryan County. (Doc. 29.) Because Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court's prior Order is clearly erroneous, the Court
The background of this lawsuit was set forth in the Court's June 8, 2018 Order and need not be restated in full here. Put succinctly, Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court of Bryan County and claimed damages below this Court's jurisdictional amount. Specifically, the Complaint states that "the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, no individual claim exceeds $75,000.00, and there are less than 100 class members." (Doc. 1-3, p. 1.) As set forth in the Court's prior Order, "Plaintiffs have actually had three chances to state their claimed damages in court filings, and at all three turns they confirm that they seek less than $75,000 per person." (Doc. 29, pp. 2-3 (summarizing Plaintiffs' original complaint, amended complaint, and refiled complaint).) On May 2, 2018, however, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Defendant's counsel and indicated that each Plaintiff's claim actually exceeded $300,000. (
Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. (See generally Id.) Defendants contended that the Court could exercise jurisdiction because Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $75,000 and Plaintiffs' citizenship was completely diverse from Defendants. (
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
Plaintiffs do not explicitly state which of the three prerequisites for a motion for reconsideration they are relying upon. However, they clearly do not cite to any newly discovered evidence or a change in the law. Thus, they must demonstrate that the Court made a clear error of law or fact when denying their Motion to Remand. The most that Plaintiffs offer on this front is a contention that, in determining whether Defendants knew earlier (within the thirty-day window required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446) that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 per Plaintiff, the Court's prior Order "did not account for attorney's fees and mental pain and suffering as significant portions of the amount in controversy, which they are." (Doc. 30, p. 2.) However, the Court explicitly accounted for these items of damages:
(Doc. 29, p. 4.) Plaintiffs now argue that "[s]ince Mr. Murray itemized damages of approximately $64,000 and also claimed attorney's fees and mental pain and suffering, Defendants undoubtedly knew that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. . . ."
Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court made a clear error of law or fact when holding that Defendants timely filed their Notice of Removal. Specifically, the Court's holding that Plaintiffs' counsel's May 2, 2018 email triggered 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)'s clock was not clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary have already been rejected by the Court and are contradicted by Plaintiffs' own prior pleadings.
For all of these reasons, the Court