Sanjiv Goel M.D., Inc. v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Remand

Goel’s complaint alleges that “[t]he aggregate amount of [Defendant]’s underpayments amounts to no less than $221,575.41, increasing by the day, plus applicable interest at 15 percent per annum, and any applicable penalties and fees. While Plaintiff realizes its total damages exceed $75,000, Plaintiff has agreed to limit its total amount in controversy to less than $75,000.” Compl. ¶ 3.

In its Opposition, United argues that it has met its burden for removal because Goel did not actually agree to limit its damages to $75,000 or less, that the complaint admits a larger amount of actual damages, and that Goel’s claim that it will limit the amount-in-controversy was not made in good faith. Opp. at 8.

Notwithstanding United’s arguments, there is nothing improper about a plaintiff “resort[ing] to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount” to avoid removal. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294 (1938). But to do so properly, the plaintiff must submit a “legally binding” stipulation that it will only seek an amount below the jurisdictional minimum (inclusive of attorney’s fees…