United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
NOTICE AND ORDER
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6, 2018 plaintiff, Rebecca Nicholson
(“Plaintiff”), filed a Petition for Damages (the
“Petition”) against defendant, Dolgencorp, LLC
(“Defendant”), for damages allegedly arising out
of a July 19, 2017 slip and fall. In her Petition, Plaintiff
does not specify what injuries she sustained and instead only
asserts that such injuries were
“serious.” Plaintiff seeks damages for “past,
present, and future physical pain, suffering, and anguish;
past, present and future mental anguish; physical disability
and/or impairment of function and activities; scarring and/or
disfigurement; loss of enjoyment of life; and loss of
consortium.” Plaintiff further alleges that as a result
of the accident, she has incurred “medical expenses,
drug/prescription medication, rehabilitation therapy,
diagnostic procedures, travel, and other related and
January 30, 2019, Defendant removed this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.Defendant contends that the amount in
controversy in this action exceeds $75, 000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, based on Plaintiff's discovery
responses, which include medical records showing that
Plaintiff underwent an MRI and that Plaintiff's doctor
“noted the films showed that Plaintiff ‘has
multiple disc bulges and facet arthropathy with disc
herniation in the lower cervical
spine.'” Defendant asserts that “[e]ven a
single alleged disc protrusion satisfies the jurisdictional
amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.
Defendant's reliance on records produced by Plaintiff in
response to discovery requests, there is no indication
regarding the amount of Plaintiff's medical expenses.
There is no information regarding the nature and extent of
Plaintiff's alleged disability or impairment, or whether
Plaintiff has been recommended for surgery. The allegations
in the Petition and Notice of Removal are not sufficient to
establish the amount in controversy,  and the court sua
sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise
diversity jurisdiction in this matter, specifically, whether
the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before
Friday, February 15, 2019, Defendant,
Dolgencorp, LLC, shall file a memorandum and supporting
evidence concerning whether the amount in controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before Monday,
February 25, 2019, Plaintiff shall file either: (1)
a Notice stating that Plaintiff does not object to
Defendant's assertion that the amount in controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met; or (2) a Motion
case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately
 R. Doc. 1-1.
 R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 9.
 R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 10.
 R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 11.
 R. Doc. 1. Defendant alleges that
Plaintiff is a domiciliary of Louisiana and that the sole
member of Dolgencorp, LLC “is Dollar General
Corporation, which is incorporated and has its principal
place of business in Tennessee.” R. Doc. 1, ¶
6(A)(1) & (2). Plaintiff also names XYZ insurance company
in her Petition; however, “[i]n determining whether a
civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction
under section 1332(a)..., the ...