United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 9)
filed on February 2, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc.
12). Plaintiff filed a reply. (R. Doc. 16).
about December 6, 2017, Lakeisha Anderson
(“Plaintiff”) initiated this personal injury
action in the 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville Parish,
Louisiana, naming as defendants Swift Transportation Company
of Arizona, LLC (“Swift”) and Cordell Cornelius
Harris (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as
the fictitious entity ABC Insurance Company. (R. Doc. 1-1 at
5-8, “Petition”). Plaintiff alleges that on or
about December 7, 2016, she was involved in an accident
between a commercial truck operated by Plaintiff and owned by
her employer, and a commercial truck operated by Mr. Harris
and owned by Swift. (Petition ¶ 3). Plaintiff alleges
that as a result of the collision, she “sustained
bodily injuries that required medical attention and treatment
by a physician.” (Petition ¶ 6). Plaintiff, who
did not specify the injuries that she sustained, seeks
recovery of “general and special damages.”
(Petition ¶ 10).
January 2, 2018, defense counsel attempted to contract
Plaintiff's counsel “to discuss [Plaintiff's]
injury and her treatment status, and more specifically
whether [Plaintiff's counsel] believe her claim exceeds
$75, 000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.” (R. Doc.
12-1 at 1).
January 8, 2018, Defendants removed this action on the basis
that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1). In support of
a finding that the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied, Defendants rely upon Plaintiff's allegations
in the Petition (including the lack of any allegation
providing a lack of federal jurisdiction), Plaintiff's
failure to enter into a binding stipulation regarding the
amount of damages, and defense counsel's failure to reach
Plaintiff's counsel to discuss the amount of damages. (R.
Doc. 1 at 4-5).
January 11, 2018, Defendant propounded interrogatories and
requests for production on Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 12-1).
February 2, 2018, Defendant propounded requests for admission
pertaining to the amount in controversy. (R. Doc. 12-1 at
26-29). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand the same
day. (R. Doc. 12).
Arguments of the Parties
support of remand, Plaintiff argues that it is not facially
apparent from the Petition that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied. (R. Doc. 9-1). Plaintiff
specifically argues that Defendants have not met their burden
of establishing the amount in controversy because the
Petition does not specific types of injuries supporting a
finding that the amount in controversy is met, and Plaintiff
is not required by law to stipulate to a specific amount in
damages. (R. Doc. 9-1 at 4-7). ...