Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-463, Section: "J" (5)
April 26, 2001
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rec. Dcc. 6) filed by plaintiff Corey Caliste ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff's motion, set for hearing on April 11, 2001, is before the Court on briefs without oral argument. Defendant, Akmar Shipping Trading Co. ("Defendant"), opposes the motion.
After a review of the motion, opposition, and notice of removal, the Court concluded that subject matter jurisdiction turned on whether the jurisdictional amount was met. Accordingly, the parties were ordered to submit evidence tending to establish the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries and damages. On April 20, 2001, Defendant submitted its evidence, at which time the Court took the matter under advisement. Having now considered the memoranda, the record, and Defendant's additional evidence, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met its burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff filed suit in state court for personal injuries he sustained while working aboard a vessel owned and operated by Defendant. Defendant timely removed the suit to this Court alleging subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). Plaintiff moved to remand the case arguing that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In accordance with Louisiana law, the petition does not allege a specific amount of damages. See La. Code Civ. Pro. 893.
Analysis
When a case is removed to federal court, defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999)). Defendant can meet that burden 1) by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent" from the complaint that plaintiff's claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or 2) "by setting forth facts in controversy — preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit — that support a finding of the requisite amount." Id. (quotingLuckett, 171 F.3d at 298). Because it is presumed that a federal court lacks jurisdiction until it has been demonstrated to exist, any doubt as to federal subject matter jurisdiction is to be resolved in favor of remand. Heaton v. Monogram, 1999 WL 1789422, *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 1999) (citing Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 792 (U.S. App. D.C. 1983)).
In the instant case, Defendant asserts that it is facially apparent from Plaintiff's petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because the petition alleges injuries to Plaintiff's back and right knee. While the petition does allege those injuries, it gives no indication of the extent of those injuries, and therefore, it is not facially apparent that the claim exceeds $75,000.
Nor does the medical evidence, subsequently offered by Defendant in opposition to the motion, substantiate Defendant's assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The evidence submitted shows that Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue strain of the back, neck, and right knee with medical bills totaling only $8,500. The MRI tests reveal no permanent or serious injuries. No evidence of lost wages was submitted. consequently, Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Because Defendant has failed to prove subject matter jurisdiction, remand to state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), is appropriate. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by plaintiff Corey Caliste should be and is hereby GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.