Summary
noting that plaintiff's demand letter itemized $45,494.93 in medical expenses and lost wages
Summary of this case from GRESHAM v. SEI INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT CORPOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-1659-M
October 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
The Court has before it Plaintiffs Motion to Abstain and Remand. For the reasons stated below, the Court is of the opinion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Jabbar Alfridawi ("Alfridawi") against Steve Switzer ("Switzer") and Swift Transportation ("Swift"). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Abstain and Remand.
BACKGROUND
In the evening of August 30, 2000, Alfridawi was struck by a truck and trailer operated by Switzer and owned by Swift. On June 18, 2002, Alfridawi brought suit against Switzer and Swift for negligence in the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas. Alfridawi claimed injuries resulting from the collision, and he alleged that pain and discomfort from these injuries would continue into the future. Alfridawi sought damages in "excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount" of the County Court, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and $50,000 in punitive damages for gross negligence.
The jurisdictional amount for Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 is $500 to $100,000. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.003(c)(1) (Vernon 2002).
Pl.'s Orig. Pet. pp. 3-4.
On August 6, 2002, Switzer and Swift timely removed this action, claiming diversity jurisdiction. Alfridawi is a resident of Texas. Switzer is a resident of Georgia. Swift is a corporation incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in Arizona. Complete diversity of citizenship thus exists. Alfridawi's Motion to Remand is based upon the alleged absence of necessary proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
ANALYSIS
In order to sustain removal of this action, Switzer and Swift have the burden to show that this Court has proper diversity jurisdiction. The Court determines diversity jurisdiction based on the state of claims in Alfridawi's petition at the time of removal. Because Alfridawi did not directly allege quantified damages in excess of $75,000, Switzer and Swift must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in fact exceeds $75,000. To determine if Switzer and Swift meet this burden, the Court must first review the petition to see if it is facially apparent that the claim exceeds $75,000. If it does not, counsel for the removing party may set forth facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount. If Switzer and Swift meet this burden, Alfridawi can only defeat removal if he can prove that, "to a legal certainty," the claim really was for less than $75,000.
Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1995).
Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335; De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1993).
Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335-36; Compana, L.L.C. v. Agile Software Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15901 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (Kendall, J.).
DeAguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412.
Here it is not facially apparent from Alfridawi's petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, but that conclusion can be easily drawn from the evidence before the Court. Alfridawi seeks unspecified compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages. In the petition, Alfridawi seeks compensatory damages for bodily injuries, pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, mental anguish, all reasonable and necessary physician and medical expenses, future periodic medical treatment, lost wages, and lost earning capacity. It is reasonable to infer the compensatory damages claim exceeds $25,000. Further, Switzer and Swift present sufficient summary-judgement-type evidence to support a finding that Alfridawi seeks damages exceeding $75,000. In the Appendix to their Response, Switzer and Swift provide a demand letter from Alfridawi's counsel that itemizes $45,494.93 in medical expenses and lost wages of Mr. Alfridawi. When the Court adds this amount to the $50,000 in punitive damages specifically pleaded by Alfridawi and notes that no amount is included for past or future pain and discomfort, the Court concludes that Switzer and Swift demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional amount. Alfridawi has failed to demonstrate that, to a legal certainty, the amount of his claim really was less than $75,000 at the time of removal. Because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, removal to this Court was proper. The Court, therefore, DENIES Alfridawi's Motion to Remand.
Although this demand letter may be inadmissible at trial as a settlement negotiation protected by Federal Rule Evidence 408, the rule does not require "the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations." FED. R. EVID. 408. Here, Alfridawi's medical bills and lost wages are discoverable facts that pertain to the amount of Alfridawi's damages.
SO ORDERED.