Summary
finding that the "number and severity of the plaintiff's injuries" showed that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and that the plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that her damages did not exceed $75,000 was simply additional evidence that "suggested" the amount in controversy requirement was met
Summary of this case from Williams v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 00-1893, SECTION: E/5
October 18, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff BARBARA BROADWAY has filed a motion to remand this matter to Civil District Court for the Parish of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, from which it was removed. Plaintiff alleges that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction of this matter because defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount exceeding $75,000 is present. Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. opposes this motion.
Plaintiff claims damages arising from the negligence of the defendant. Defendant has answered, praying for a dismissal of the claims, and asserts several defenses, including: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
It is alleged that, on June 10, 1999, plaintiff, while inspecting a furniture display, was injured in the Wal-Mart store, owned and operated by the defendant, located at 6901 Bundy Road, New Orleans, Louisiana. Her specific allegations are that:
While shopping in the furniture area, Ms. Broadway cam across a wood cabinet display, located approximately three (3) feet off the floor and approximately five (5) feet in height. In an attempt to examine the inside of the cabinet, Ms. Broadway grabbed the handle and opened the door. The door, however, was not hinged properly and fell approximately three to four feet before striking Ms. Broadway in the head, neck and shoulder area.See Complaint at ¶¶ II-III. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident, she "sustained severe and painful injuries to various parts of the body. These injuries have caused petitioner to suffer severe pain and has [sic] limited her movement for a period of time." See Complaint at ¶ VIII. Ms. Broadway seeks damages for "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and distress, medical expenses, loss of wages, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, scarring, disability and other elements of damages to be proven at trial." See Complaint at IX.
The defendant has removed this action from Louisiana state court to this Court based on diversity of citizenship of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The diversity of the parties to this action has not been contested by the plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff argues that remand is proper because the amount in controversy is insufficient for the Court to maintain subject matter jurisdiction.
The Fifth Circuit has made clear the standard for determining whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiffs in Louisiana state courts may not specify the numerical valuation of their claimed damages, by law, the removing defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 893;Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993)). The defendant has two means of making this showing: (1) by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent" that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or (2) by setting forth facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount either in the removal petition or by affidavit. See Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d at 298 (relying on Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1993)). Courts have best summed up this standard as: "Removal . . . cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations." Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)).
In the event that the defendant seeking removal does not submit to the court evidence suggesting that the requisite amount has been met, the court has no choice but to look to the language of the plaintiff's complaint. See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999). If the complaint is vague with regard to the types of injuries, medical expenses incurred, and future medical problems resulting from the incident, the court must conclude that it was not "facially apparent" that the amount of damages would exceed $75,000. See id. at 851; Moore v. J.C. Penny, Inc., CV-00-0083, 2000 WL 385516 (E.D.La. April 13, 2000).
The complaint is vague as to the nature of plaintiff's injuries, but the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories do shed light on the amount in controversy. Plaintiff has admitted that she suffered "several herniated discs." See plaintiff's Answer to Interrogatories at ¶ 4. She also admits the now limited use of her left arm and persistent soreness of her head, neck and left arm resulting from the incident. See id. at ¶¶ 4-6. Several cases indicate that damage to several discs can result in damage awards in excess of the jurisdictional amount. See Piazza v. Behrman Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., 601 So.2d 1378 (La. 1992); Smith v. Goetzman, 720 So.2d 39 (La.App. 1998). Because of the number and severity of the plaintiff's injuries, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff has suffered sufficiently severe injuries to support an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.
Further, following the filing of a motion to remand, defendant requested that plaintiff stipulate that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and plaintiff's counsel refused. See Rec. Doc. No. 12. The court in Reid v. Delta Gas, Inc., 837 F. Supp. 751 (M.D.La. 1993), suggested that failure to stipulate that the amount in controversy is below $75,000 is evidence that the amount in controversy is in excess of the requisite amount. See Reid, 837 F. Supp. at 752-53.
Considering the allegations of the petition, the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories regarding the extent of her injuries, and plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, the court finds that the defendant has borne its burden of establishing that jurisdictional amount is present.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff BARBARA BROADWAY to remand be and is hereby DENIED.