Summary
finding that, although plaintiff's stipulation limiting recovery to $75,000 weighs in favor of remand, case would not be remanded unless plaintiff filed affidavit stipulating he would not attempt to execute judgment to extent it exceeded $75,000
Summary of this case from Hinkle v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION, NO: 03-1718, SECTION: "J"(2)
August 15, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by plaintiff Eric Cleary. Rec. Doc. 5. Defendant, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. ("Murphy") opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on July 23, 2003, is before the Court on briefs without oral argument. After reviewing the record, memoranda, and exhibits that were submitted as of the July 23, 2003 hearing date, the Court issued a Minute Entry in which it expressed doubts as to whether Defendant had met its burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal However, rather than instantly remanding the case, the Court ordered both sides to submit any evidence tending to demonstrate the extent of damages at the time of removal. The parties have complied with that order by submitting additional evidence regarding Plaintiff's injuries. After review of evidence in the record, memoranda of counsel, and applicable law, the Court concludes that the removing Defendant has not satisfied its burden of proving that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand should be GRANTED for the reasons which follow.
Background
Plaintiff was injured while employed as a welder for Bayou Fabrication Machine, L.L.C. Plaintiff was cutting a flange from a pipe supplied by defendant Murphy when a sudden explosion occurred. This accident resulted in Plaintiff receiving chemical bums to his face, nose, ears, and neck as well as multiple cuts and contusions.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed suit in 34th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard. In his petition, Plaintiff seeks damages for physical and emotional injuries, permanent scarring, medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, inconvenience and aggravation, and other consequential damages. See Petition, Rec. Doc. 1. On June 13, 2003, Defendant removed the case to this Court, asserting that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand the action to state court. Plaintiff's counsel also filed a post-removal stipulation into the record that he will not pursue or attempt to recover a judgment in excess of $75,000. Rec. Doc. 5.
Discussion
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction and cannot entertain suits unless authorized by law. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248, (5th Cir. 1996). Federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the claim is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The party seeking to assert diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. DeAguilar v. Boeing, 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, when a case is removed to federal court, the defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Hartford Ins. Croup v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002).
In general, courts evaluate the facts supporting jurisdiction at the time of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000); Simon v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 851 (5th Cir. 1999). It follows that "post-removal affidavits, stipulations, amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction." Simon, 193 F.3d at 851; St. Paul Mercury Indemn. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938). However, post-removal affidavits may be considered if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal. Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883. Significantly, Louisiana state courts prohibit plaintiffs from pleading for relief in specific dollar amounts. La. Code Civ. Pro. 893. Hence, Defendant must establish that the required jurisdictional amount is met by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent" from the complaint that plaintiffs claims are likely to exceed $75,000 or by highlighting facts in controversy in the removal petition and, if necessary, submitting an affidavit to support a finding of the requisite amount. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Because it is presumed that a federal court lacks jurisdiction until such jurisdiction has been proven, any doubt as to federal subject matter jurisdiction is to be resolved in favor of remand. Dodson v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 951 F.2d 40 (5th Cir. 1992).
Defendant argues that it is facially apparent that Plaintiff's recovery will exceed $75,000 in this case based on the type and severity of injuries alleged by Plaintiff and the damages that are being sought. In so arguing, Defendant points the Court to the reasoning set forth in the unpublished case of Sandoval v. Davidson Ladder. C.A. No. H-02-2663 (S.D.Tex.2002). In Sandoval, the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of the ladder from which he fell and was injured. As in the case at bar, the plaintiff in Sandoval sought damages for past and future medical care and expenses; past and future physical pain; past and future physical impairment and other numerous consequential damages. The Sandoval court determined that it was "facially apparent" that the claims exceeded the jurisdictional amount based on the facts alleged in the complaint. However, in its ruling, the court in Sandoval never discussed the injuries for which the plaintiff sought recovery. In the present case, Defendant asks the Court to rely upon the decision in Sandoval because that court determined the jurisdictional amount was proven and the plaintiff pleaded damages similar those sought by Plaintiff herein in his petition. However, this Court has no way of assessing the injuries alleged in Sandoval as a basis for the damages pleaded. Without additional information about the type of injuries suffered by the plaintiff in that case, the Sandoval decision provides this Court little guidance regarding the instant motion.
The most persuasive case referenced by the Defendant is Davis v. Louisiana Power Light Co., 762 So.2d 229 (5th Cir. 2000), In Davis, the plaintiff was electrocuted after touching an uninsulated power line. Plaintiff suffered burns cover 3 to 5% of his body. The plaintiff also suffered permanent disfigurement in addition to an anxiety disorder and clinical depression. Notably, the plaintiff was awarded $175,000 in general damages. Defendant asks this Court to conclude based on the damages awarded in Davis that it is facially apparent that Plaintiff herein, whose injuries include chemical burns to neck and face, will definitely recover in excess of $75,000. However, the face of Plaintiff's petition does not indicate the extent to which his life has been affected by his injuries and thus whether Cleary's status is similar to the plaintiff in Davis. Accordingly, Davis does not alter the fact that from the face of the petition, the amount in controversy is ambiguous.
In an effort to resolve this ambiguity, the Court has considered the following evidence: the supplemental submissions of the parties concerning damages in response to the Court's July 25, 2003 Minute Entry, and the stipulation filed by Plaintiff's counsel.
With respect to the additional evidence submitted in response to the July 25, 2003 Minute Entry, the Court has applied a "summary judgment type" procedure and has determined that the additional evidence provides little support to Defendant's contention that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The medical records and documents submitted to the Court indicate that during Plaintiff's hospital stay that his treatment consisted only of ice compresses to his face, administration of bum ointment, pain medication, and monitoring. See Rec. Doc. 10. Plaintiff's medical bills total less than $2,000, and there is no evidence of significant wage loss. Defendant's additional evidence consists of testimony by Plaintiff regarding his injuries and unclear photographs of Plaintiffs injuries. Further, Defendant directs the Court to cases in which plaintiffs have recovered over the jurisdictional amount in similar circumstances. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant simply does not establish that the required jurisdictional amount will be recovered. Plaintiff's testimony regarding his injuries is ambiguous at best to use to ascertain his likely amount of recovery. Likewise, the photographs of Plaintiff do not clearly indicate the severity of his injuries. Also, the cases proffered by Defendant involve recovery by persons for injuries significantly more severe than those suffered by Plaintiff. Therefore, based on the record and evidence before the Court at this time, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Because the amount in controversy was ambiguous at the time of removal, the Court may consider a stipulation regarding the amount in controversy. Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff's counsel has filed a stipulation signed by counsel that "the damages do not and cannot exceed $75,000." Rec. Doc. 5. However, this Court considers post-removal stipulations in the nature of summary judgement-type evidence proffered to resolve the ambiguity of the amount in controversy. Likewise, it is sensitive to concerns of Defendant that it is possible that once remanded, Plaintiff might attempt to amend his petition to seek damages in excess of $75,000, and Defendant would be precluded from removing the case at that point because of the one-year limitation for removal provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Accordingly, while the stipulation which limits the recovery to $75,000 weighs in favor of remand, this Court requires that for it to be effective, Plaintiff must file into the record an affidavit, signed by the litigant and stipulating that in the event he is ultimately awarded an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, he will not attempt to execute the judgment to the extent that it exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court finds that it was not facially apparent at the time of removal that the amount in controversy in this case exceeded $75,000.00, and the ambiguity concerning the amount in controversy should be resolved in favor of remand provided Plaintiff files an adequate stipulation into the record. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a stipulation in accordance with the guidelines above within 15 days of entry of this order, the matter will be remanded to the 34th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard, State of Louisiana.