Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 3:02-CV-1899-G
November 19, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff Lewis Elam ("Elam") to remand this case to the state court from which it was removed by the defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide"). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about August 30, 1999, Elam's automobile was damaged in a hit and run accident. Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's Notice of Removal ("Notice of Removal"), Exhibit A, Plaintiff's Original Petition ¶ 7. Elam's automobile was covered by a Nationwide policy. Id. ¶ 8. On July 26, 2002, Elam filed this suit in the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, after Elam and Nationwide could not reach an agreement as to the amount of Elam's loss under the policy. Id. ¶ 9. On August 7, 2002, Nationwide was served with the petition. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit E3, Citation. On September 4, 2002, Nationwide removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441, and 1446. Notice of Removal at 1. On October 8, 2002, Elam moved to remand the case to the state court on the ground that the amount in controversy does not meet the statutory minimum for this court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Nationwide did not respond to that motion.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Owen Equipment and Erection Company v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over cases only as expressly provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citations omitted). Federal law gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and also over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a).
A party attempting to invoke federal court jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction. Langley v. Jackson State University, 14 F.3d 1070, 1073 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994). A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action on the grounds of diversity of citizenship when no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as a defendant and when the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a).
Here, it is undisputed that the parties are citizens of different states. However, Nationwide has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Elam maintains that his claim for damages stated in his state court petition "does not reveal on its face that such amounts would exceed $75,000." Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Supporting Brief at 2. After review of the petition, coupled with Nationwide's failure to respond to Elam's motion, the court concludes that Nationwide has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. Accordingly, the court concludes that this action was improperly removed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Elam's motion to remand is GRANTED, and the case REMANDED to the 160th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The clerk shall mail a certified copy of this order to the district clerk of Dallas County, Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).
SO ORDERED.