United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc.
11) filed by Plaintiff, Angienika McCloud.
Defendants Noah Reilly and Progressive Paloverde Insurance
Co. oppose the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on
March 21, 2018, is before the Court on the briefs without
initiated this suit in state court against Defendants for
personal injuries that she claims to have sustained in a
motor vehicle accident. Defendants removed thie suit to
federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
moves to remand the case back to state court contending that
Defendants have not met their burden as to the jurisdictional
amount in controversy.
well-established that the party invoking the jurisdiction of
a federal court has the burden of proving that the exercise
of such jurisdiction is proper. St. Paul Reins. Co. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.
1998) (citing Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occid. S.S.
Co., 287 F.2d 252, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1961)).
Any doubt regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper
should be resolved against federal jurisdiction and in favor
of remand. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d
335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Willy v.
Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir.1988)).
Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., the Fifth Circuit
summarized the analytical framework for determining whether
the amount in controversy requirement is met in cases removed
from Louisiana state courts where specific allegations as to
damage quantum are not allowed. 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir.
1999). In such cases, the removing defendant, as the party
invoking jurisdiction in a federal court, bears the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Id. (citing De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993)).
Fifth Circuit explained:
The defendant may make this showing in either of two ways:
(1) by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent"
that the claims are likely above $75, 000, or (2) by setting
forth the facts in controversy B preferably in the removal
petition, but sometimes by affidavit B that support a finding
of the requisite amount.
Id. (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas
Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995));
Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 882
(5th Cir. 2000).
instant case there is no disputing that the amount in
controversy is not facially apparent from Plaintiff's
petition. Plaintiff alleges only that she “sustained
personal injuries requiring care and treatment.” (Rec.
doc. 2-3 at 2 ¶ 7). The petition offers no specifics
whatsoever as to the extent of her injuries. Defendants admit
as much in their opposition. (Rec. Doc. 13 at 3)
(“Plaintiff in this case was vague in her petition as
to the nature of her injuries and listed nothing regarding
which portions of her body were allegedly injured in the
the notice of removal does not set forth any facts to support
a finding that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.
point out both in the notice of removal and in their
opposition, however, that when responding to requests for
admission prior to removal, Plaintiff answered
“Denied” to the following statement:
admit that your damages are less than Seventy-five thousand
dollars ($75, ...