Opinion
No. 00-1655
July 24, 2000
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Remand the instant case to the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana. The thrust of the plaintiff's motion is that nowhere is it alleged or has it been otherwise indicated that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs. The motion was formally opposed by the defendants. The matter was noticed for hearing on July 19, 2000, but was deemed submitted on the briefs and documents of record. For the reasons stated herein below, the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.
The dispute between the parties centers around the amount in controversy. There is complete diversity of citizenship. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs and there is diversity between all of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
In her state court petition for damages, in accordance with LSA-C.C.P. art 893(A)(1), plaintiff seeks no specific monetary sum. Several Fifth Circuit decisions have established a clear analytical framework for resolving disputes concerning the amount in controversy. Because in Louisiana state courts, by law a plaintiff may not specify a numerical value of the damage claim, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
Luckett v. Delta Airlines. Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 299 (5th Cir. 1999); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
The defendant may make the requisite showing in two ways: (1) by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000; or (2) "by setting forth the facts in controversy — preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit — that support a finding of the requisite amount."
Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
Reading the face of the complaint, it is clear that plaintiff's claims may well exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum exclusive of interest and costs. Taylor's petition for damages alleges that on or about August 15, 1999 defendant Darren Murphy's vehicle crossed the centerline of LA 39 and struck her vehicle head-on, both violently and severely and with the full force of impact. See Petition, para. VI. Taylor's petition further states that:
Laura Taylor suffered sever injuries to the muscles, ligaments, tendons, blood vessels, nerves and other soft structures of the cervical, lumbar, and thoracic regions of the spine and her nervous system and psyche; aggravation, precipitation, and/or the exacerbation of prior existing non-debilitating predispositions * * *
As a further result your petitioner, Laura Taylor, suffered sever physical pain and suffering as well as keen mental and emotional anguish and distress; she has incurred expenses for medical care and treatment which she otherwise would not have incurred; and has been handicapped in her normal activities. These conditions may continue, worsen or become permanent; and the full residuals and sequelae of her injuries are as yet not fully known but have been and will be severe.Id. at paras. VII and VIII.
Severe permanent injuries the likes of which continue to unfold as set forth in the above petition, whether soft tissue injuries or not, accompanied by continuing severe pain, suffering, mental anguish and damage to the psyche as a result of a violent head-on collision on Louisiana Highway 39 are indeed indicative of an amount in controversy beyond the jurisdictional minimum.
In the case at bar, plaintiff's counsel has not even attempted to clarify the matter of the amount in controversy and the petition paints a picture which is indeed dire to say the least. There is no binding stipulation signed by the plaintiff and her counsel, specifically waiving the right to enforce or collect any judgment in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. Simply stated, the Court finds that the defendants have met their burden of proof which the plaintiff has failed to counter with either an affidavit or evidence to the effect that her injuries are not quite as severe as may be indicated in her allegations, although their full extent is unknown.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.