Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-585 C/W 01-650, Section: "J" (4)
September 27, 2001
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 67) and Motion for Reconsideration and/or Post-Judgment Relief and Re-Urgence of Motion to Certify July 17, 2001 Order for Permissive Appeal (Rec. Doc. 68). Defendant, Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. ("HRI"), opposes both motions. The Court denied oral argument, and the motions, set for hearing on September 26, 2001, are before the Court on briefs. Having considered the evidence submitted by both sides, the various memoranda, and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motions.
BACKGROUND
The underlying facts of this case were detailed in Hamilton v. United Healthcare, Inc., at 2001 WL 536300 (E.D.La. May 17, 2001) and 2001 WL 812076 (E.D.La. July 16, 2001), and need not be repeated here. The relevant procedural history is as follows. In an order entered July 17, 2001, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the Act. (Rec. Doc. 61). Noting the lack of controlling authority on the issue, the Court ordered the parties to file memoranda on the. propriety vel non of certifying that dismissal for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). The Court also sua sponte questioned whether plaintiff's pendent state laws claims had an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the parties to submit memoranda on the issue of jurisdiction.
After considering the parties' memoranda, in an order dated August 17, 2001, the Court concluded that no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction existed over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims, because Plaintiff had failed to establish that his claims meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (Rec. Doc. 66). Upon dismissing the state law claims without prejudice, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Order for Permissive Appeal.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant motions, essentially asking the Court to consider, once again, whether Plaintiff has established that his state law claims against HRI satisfy the amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement. The Court, having considered the applicable law and arguments presented by counsel, denies both of Plaintiff's motions for the reasons that. follow.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, arguing that the proposed amendments provide additional grounds for recovery and that those additional claims would cure the amount in controversy defect. Plaintiff's proposed amendments, however, still do not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Plaintiff only alleges new theories of recovery based on the same set of facts alleged in his original complaint — that HRI wrongfully collected approximately $57,000.000 from Plaintiff's automobile insurer following Plaintiff's injury in an automobile accident and that Plaintiff is entitled to a return of those funds.
Plaintiff proposes to amend his complaint to state claims against HRI for damages pursuant to La. Civ. Code arts. 1953, et seq. (fraud in confecting a contract), 1997 (obligor in bad faith), and 2315 (tort liability). However, these amendments do not set forth any new claims for funds, but apparently provide new theories of recovery for the same $57,000.00 Plaintiff seeks to have returned from ERI. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint does not allege what additional damages under these codal articles he is seeking, or the amount of any such damages.
In fact, Plaintiff would not be entitled to any damages under Article 1958, the damages provision with respect to fraud, as that article only provides for damages and attorneys fees if the Court rescinds the contract allegedly entered into through fraudulent enticement. La. Civ. Code art. 1958.
While Article 1997 provides that an obligor in bad faith is liable for all foreseeable damages, Plaintiff has not alleged what damages other than the wrongful deprivation of the $57,000.00 he has suffered as a result of HRI's actions. La. Civ. Code art. 1997. The same can also be said regarding Plaintiff's claim under Article 2315.
Plaintiff also proposes to amend his complaint to seek attorneys' fees on his individual claim and the putative class action under these statutes. However, the only statute cited that provides for attorneys' fees is Article 1958, which applies when a party has been enticed to enter a contract by fraudulent conduct and the Court rescinds the contract on those grounds. La. Civ. Code art. 1958. That article clearly does not apply here.
Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff's original complaint demanded attorneys' fees for both his individual claim and the putative class action, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1409(A) (unfair trade practices), and the Court has already found that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that those claims satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff's proposed amendments do not establish that his claims for funds he alleges were wrongfully recovered by HRI and for attorneys' fees satisfy the $75,000.00 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 67) is DENIED. Because Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Re-Urgence of Motion to Certify (Rec. Doc. 68) is premised entirely on the Court finding that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement, that motion is likewise DENIED.