United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
NOTICE AND ORDER
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil action involving claims for damages based upon the
injuries allegedly sustained by Sefera Bailey
(“Plaintiff”) in East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on
September 3, 2018, while patronizing a Chuck E. Cheese
restaurant, she slipped and fell on a wet surface while
walking to the restroom (the
“Accident”). Plaintiff alleges that the Accident was
caused by the fault and negligence of the owner and operator
of the restaurant, Defendant CEC Entertainment, Inc.
(“CEC”), because CEC created, inter
alia, an unreasonably dangerous condition.
about August 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Petition for
Damages (“Petition”) against CEC in the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge. On September 25, 2019, CEC removed the
matter to this Court asserting that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
information regarding the citizenship of all parties, and the
amount in controversy, is necessary to establish the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction, as well as to make the
determination required under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 regarding
whether the case was properly removed to this Court. The
Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff is a domiciliary of
Louisiana and CEC is a Kansas corporation with its principal
place of business in Texas; therefore, complete diversity of
citizenship appears to exist.
not clear from the Notice of Removal or the Petition whether
Plaintiff’s claims likely exceed $75, 000, exclusive of
interest and costs. The Petition alleges Plaintiff’s
injuries as follows:
The Petitioner has suffered the following damages arising
from negligence of Racetrac (sic):
A. Pain/Suffering-Physical, past, present, and future;
B. Pain/Suffering-Mental, past, present, and future;
C. Loss of Enjoyment of Life, past, present, and future;
D. Aggravation of pre-existing condition;
E. Medical Expenses-Past/Present/Future, and
F. Permanent Disability.
also seeks “judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against defendant for all sums as are reasonable given the
premise set forth herein, ” as well as interest and
Notice of Removal, CEC alleges that, on September 18, 2019,
it submitted correspondence and a proposed Irrevocable
Stipulation and Agreement (the “Stipulation”) to
Plaintiff’s counsel in order to clarify the amount in
controversy. CEC contends that it requested for
Plaintiff to consider the proposed Stipulation, indicating
that Plaintiff’s damages do not exceed $75, 000,
exclusive of interest and costs, “and that, if
Plaintiff did not respond to or execute the proposed
Stipulation, CEC would continue to rely upon the face of the
[Petition] suggesting that the amount in controversy was in
excess of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Plaintiff[’s] counsel and counsel for CEC conferred,
and counsel for Plaintiff refused to sign the Stipulation,
contending that Plaintiff’s injuries put more than $75,
000 in controversy….” According to CEC,
Plaintiff’s claims for damages cited above,
Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the ...