United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
filed a motion to remand for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Rec. Doc. 8. Defendant filed an
opposition. See Rec. Doc. 10. For the reasons
discussed below, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion to remand is DENIED.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 21, 2016, Plaintiff tripped and fell at a Lowe's
Home Center (“Lowe's”) located in Jefferson,
Louisiana. See Rec. Doc. 1 at 1. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims that she tripped over “iron bolts
sticking about one inch high out of the floor” while
shopping in the garden section of the store. See
Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 1. On or around October 16, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a petition for damages in the 24th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana,
alleging that employees of Lowe's rendered the
store's premises defective. See Rec. Doc. 1-3.
14, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of removal, alleging that
this Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). See Rec. Doc. 1 at 4. Plaintiff does
not dispute that complete diversity is met. She alleges that
the amount in controversy is not met. See Rec. Doc.
8. Defendant alleges that the amount in controversy is
clearly met. See Rec. Doc. 10.
civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may
be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district
court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing party has the burden to
establish the existence of jurisdiction. See Winters v.
Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 397 (5th Cir.
1998). “To determine whether jurisdiction is present
for removal, [courts] consider the claims in the state court
petition as they existed at the time of removal.”
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276
F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). “Any ambiguities are
construed against removal because the removal statute should
be strictly construed in favor of remand.” Id.
courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions that
meet both requirements of diversity jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In other words, a
civil action may be removed if (1) it is between citizens of
different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and cost.
defendant must prove that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000 by a preponderance of evidence. See Gebbia v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir.
2000). A defendant may prove such by showing that it is
facially apparent that the claims are likely above $75, 000
or setting forth facts in controversy that support a finding
of the requisite amount. See Luckett v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999).
Defendant has set forth sufficient facts to prove that it is
facially apparent that Plaintiff's claims are likely
above $75, 000. Plaintiff's contention that the amount in
controversy is unknown and cannot be met on speculation is
unconvincing. Plaintiff, in her original petition for
damages, alleged damages for, inter alia, pain and
suffering, medical expenses, hospital expenses,
pharmaceutical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Furthermore, as laid out in the removal notice (Rec. Doc. 1),
Plaintiff has claimed several severe injuries, including
injuries to both knees, cervical segmental dysfunction,
lumbar segmental dysfunction, right elbow sprain, right
shoulder sprain, and left wrist sprain. These claims support
a finding of at least $75, 000 in damages. See
Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883 (holding that similar
allegations supported a monetary basis large enough to confer
removal jurisdiction). Therefore, this Court finds, with
legal certainty, that the amount in controversy is met and
this Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over the
above-captioned matter. This case will not be remanded.
is reminded to avoid inconsistencies in written pleadings and
argument. In using summary judgment standards to assess
claimed injuries, medical and economic losses, conclusory
argument must be supported by admissible factual evidence and
comparable quantum analysis of damage awards from similar
 Plaintiff is domiciled in Louisiana.
See Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 1. Defendant is incorporated in
North Carolina with its principal place of business in North