Opinion
Civil Action 21-709-SDD-SDJ
09-30-2022
MYOSHI SNEARL v. CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION, ET AL.
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK CHIEF JUDGE.
The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record, the law applicable to this action, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Scott D. Johnson dated September 12, 2022, to which an Objection was filed. The Court conducted a de novo review.
Rec. Doc. 5.
Rec. Doc. 17.
Rec. Doc. 18.
Defendant contends in its Objection that it has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $75,000. Although this is a close call, the Court disagrees.
When considering the amount in controversy for removal purposes, if no specific amount of damages are pled, the removing defendant must show that the amount in controversy is met by “demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above $75,000” or “setting forth the facts in controversy - preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit - that support a finding of the requisite amount.”
Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1999)(quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995)).
In this case, all damages were pled generally, and no numerical values were assigned to any specific claim. As such, Defendant must show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by presenting facts that show it is more likely than not that the requisite amount is met. Upon reviewing the Defendants removal pleadings and Objection, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and findings. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Defendants have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy in this matter is likely to exceed the federal jurisdictional minimum.
Id.
The Court hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein.
ACCORDINGLY, The Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rec. Doc. 5.