Opinion
Case No. A4-02-09.
November 8, 2004
ORDER
The Defendants have challenged the Court's jurisdiction over this matter. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied.
I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
This matter stems from the January 18, 2002, derailment of a Canadian Pacific freight train near Minot, North Dakota. Several damaged tanker cars released anhydrous ammonia into the air. On January 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, claiming that Canadian Pacific was responsible for the personal injuries and property damage they suffered because of the trail derailment.
On September 2, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On October 1, 2004, Canadian Pacific filed a response opposing the motion to certify a class action. In its response, Canadian Pacific asserted that the named plaintiffs failed to establish $75,000 in damages required to sustain diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
On October 7, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the filing of a reply brief to the motion to certify a class action until the issue of jurisdiction has been resolved. On October 8, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a stay and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on the specific issue of whether the named plaintiffs have met the amount in controversy requirement necessary to support diversity jurisdiction.
The parties filed their supplemental briefs on October 22, 2004. The Plaintiffs assert that they have alleged damages exceeding the amount in controversy requirement, including damages for personal injury, emotional and mental damages, and future medical costs. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have not suffered permanent physical injuries and that their medical expenses to date are less than $75,000. The Defendant's also contend that the Plaintiffs cannot recover damages based on their subjective fear and that North Dakota has not recognized medical monitoring claims.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Whether a plaintiff satisfies the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement is a jurisdictional issue for the Court to decide. Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959 (8th Cir. 2000). A complaint must be dismissed if it appears that the value of the claim is less than the required amount of $75,000. Id. The Eighth Circuit recently summarized the inquiry for determining whether the amount in controversy requirement had been satisfied.
We have held that a complaint that alleges the jurisdictional amount in good faith will suffice to confer jurisdiction, but the complaint will be dismissed if it appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.' Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). If the defendant challenges the plaintiff's allegations of the amount in controversy, then the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 188-89 (1936); see also Federated Mut. Implement and Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider, 268 F.2d 734, 737-38 (8th Cir. 1959).
When the legal certainty standard announced in Larkin is combined with the burden of proof established in McNutt, it appears that the relevant legal rule is that the proponent of diversity jurisdiction must prove a negative by a preponderance of the evidence in order to avoid dismissal of his or her case. A legal treatise, for example, suggests that the proponent of federal jurisdiction must show that it does not appear to a legal certainty that the claim for relief is for less that the statutorily prescribed jurisdictional amount. 14B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3702 (3d ed. 1998).Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2002). This amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied when a fact finder could legally conclude, from the pleadings and the proof adduced to the court before trial, that the damages that the plaintiff suffered are greater than $75,000.' Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. 1405 Associates, Inc., 340 F.3d 547, 549 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kopp 280 F.3d 883, 885). Although a plaintiff needs to demonstrate the legal certainty test by a preponderance of the evidence, no specific amount need be proved by such preponderance. 280 F.3d 883, 885. Thus, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount to warrant a dismissal.
A. DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY
The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint contains the following allegations:
Diversity of citizen ship exists between all Plaintiffs and Defendants and this Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute is established by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (complete diversity of citizenship). Plaintiffs allege damages in excess of $75,000.00.
Plaintiffs, and other persons in the vicinity of the ensuing release of ANHYDROUS AMMONIA, sustained damages including, but not limited to, personal injury, emotional and mental damages, evacuation, shelter in place, property damage, property value diminution, inconvenience, insecurity in their property, or any combination of these results.
Plaintiffs and persons located in the areas of the SPILL and NH3 CLOUD fear, feared, or both, that, as a result of the exposure, they will suffer adverse health consequences or diseases in the future.
The derailment and release of ANHYDROUS AMMONIA and the reasonably foreseeable events that followed caused considerable fear, anguish, discomfort and inconvenience for Plaintiffs and of the populace of Minot and the communities and rural areas surrounding the site of the release of ANHYDROUS AMMONIA as well as injuries which required medical treatment, and had caused physical, mental, and emotional damage.
Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 16, 17, 18. The Plaintiffs have pled that, as a result of the toxic explosion, they have physical injuries, mental and emotional damage, considerable fear, anguish, discomfort, and inconvenience. The Plaintiffs also request damages for past and future medical expenses including diagnostic and monitoring costs. Second Amended Complaint, Prayer, ¶ 2a.
The Defendants attempt to defeat the Plaintiffs' claims for noneconomic damages by asserting that the Plaintiffs have alleged separate claims based on the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Under North Dakota law, a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim only upon a showing of a physical manifestation of the emotional distress. Muchow v. Lindblad, 435 N.W.2d 918, 921 n. 4 (N.D. 1989). The Plaintiffs assert the Defendants have dissembled their claims in a manner that completely ignores the law of recoverable damages for personal injuries in both North Dakota and Minnesota.
The issue of whether North Dakota or Minnesota law should apply has not been fully briefed by the parties. Rather, the Plaintiffs have provided citation to law from both Minnesota and North Dakota. The Court will review the Plaintiffs' claims under the law of both jurisdictions. The Court need not decide which jurisdiction's laws should apply at this stage of the litigation.
North Dakota has codified the type of damages recoverable in a personal injury claim.
In any civil action for damages for . . . injury to a person and whether arising out of breach of contract or tort, damages may be awarded by the trier of fact as follows: . . . Compensation for noneconomic damages, which are damages arising from pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, fear of injury, loss or illness, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation, humiliation, and other nonpecuniary damage.
N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-04. It is clear that North Dakota law allows for the recovery of physical and emotional damages in a personal injury action. There is no statutory cap on the amount of recoverable economic and noneconomic damages. Minnesota allows for the recovery of similar types of damages including pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment and emotional distress.See 4A Minn. Prac., Jury Instr. Guides Civil 91.10 (4th ed.);Dawydowycz v. Quady, 220 N.W.2d 478 (1974); Krueger v. Henschke, 298 N.W. 44 (1941). Both North Dakota and Minnesota law allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages as part of a personal injury claim.
The Defendants attempt to minimize the Plaintiffs' physical injuries by repeatedly asserting the Plaintiffs did not suffer permanent physical injuries. To support their proposition that the Plaintiffs' injuries are not permanent, the Defendants have submitted an affidavit from Dr. Thomas F. Mulrooney, M.D. According to Dr. Mulrooney, If an individual suffers physical harm from anhydrous ammonia exposure, that harm will be manifest (sic) nearly immediately or it will not occur. See Affidavit of Dr. Thomas F. Mulrooney, M.D., ¶ 5. As a result, the Defendants contend the Plaintiffs' damages could consist of only the medical expenses they have incurred to date, plus some minimal economic damages for wage losses, etc.
Not surprisingly, the Plaintiffs assert they have suffered permanent injuries such that they may require medical attention in the future. The Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits from their own expert, Dr. James G. Dahlgren, M.D. In his affidavit, Dr. Dahlgren states:
I have reviewed extensive literature regarding the residual health problems of individuals exposed to NH3. This literature reveals that a primary injury from ammonia exposure is debilitating and progressive respiratory complications.
The NH3 effect on the lung is not always immediately apparent. The full impact of NH3 damage is not known for at least two years after the exposure. Animal studies reveal that the effect on the lungs appears over time as the inflammatory and scarring process progresses.See Affidavit of Dr. James G. Dahlgren, M.D., ¶¶ 14-15. In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs specifically request damages for future medical expenses.
The Court notes the parties' disagreement concerning whether exposure to anhydrous ammonia produces only immediate injuries, or injuries which may manifest over time, will be a point of contention at trial. Nevertheless, even when an arguably minor physical injury occurs, damages are not limited to merely economic damages (medical expenses) under North Dakota law. It is for the jury to evaluate and assess damages in light of the totality of the circumstances of the case. It is well-recognized that claims for noneconomic damages do not lend themselves to absolute legal certainty. However, such claims often play a significant role as a component of damages awarded in toxic tort claims. The Plaintiffs have alleged physical injuries and injuries in the form of noneconomic damages. The Court finds that the combination of these injuries may result in a jury verdict awarding damages in excess of $75,000. See Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding jurisdiction in a case where actual medical bills fell well below $75,000 when the law did not limit noneconomic damages and the plaintiff had alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000). The Court expressly finds that the Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient evidence to show that a fact finder could legally conclude the damages the Plaintiffs suffered are greater than $75,000. The sum claimed by the named Plaintiffs controls if the claim is made in good faith, and the Court finds that the claims made in this case were made in good faith and meet the legal certainty standard.
The Court notes that the parties also disagree as to whether punitive damages should be considered in reaching a decision as to the amount in controversy. At this stage, the Plaintiffs have not included a request for punitive damages in their pleadings. The Plaintiffs acknowledge they have not included a request for punitive damages, but they also state they must seek leave of Court to include a request for punitive damages. The Court has reached its conclusion that the Plaintiffs have alleged $75,000 in damages without taking into effect the possibility of an award of punitive damages.
B. MEDICAL MONITORING
The Court finds it is unnecessary to resolve the issue raised by the parties concerning medical monitoring at this stage in the litigation. Regardless of whether the Plaintiffs' assertions regarding medical monitoring are characterized as an independent cause of action or as an element of damages in their personal injury claims, the Court's determination that the personal injury claims alone satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement negates the need to determine whether an independent claim for medical monitoring meets the required amount in controversy.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the named plaintiffs have met the amount-in-controversy requirement necessary to support diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the Court lifts the stay imposed on the class certification briefing schedule imposed by the Court's Order of October 8, 2004. The Plaintiffs shall have until November 29, 2004, to file a reply brief regarding the motion for class certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.