Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-2941, SECTION: "J"(5)
November 25, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
On October 22, 2003, the defendants removed this case from Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans asserting that diversity jurisdiction exists as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After defendants removed this case to federal court, the Court raised, sua sponte, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 31, 2003, this Court ordered that the parties submit evidence tending to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Both plaintiff and defendant, General Motors Corporation, responded to this Court's order. Upon review of the responses, this Court finds that the defendants have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, this matter should be remanded to state court.
Discussion
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction and, as such, are precluded from entertaining a suit unless authorized by law. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996). Pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction in all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. The party seeking to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).
Where a plaintiff fails to specify the amount in controversy in the petition, "the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000]." Id. (quoting De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993)). A defendant may meet its burden by demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above $75,000. Id. If it is not facially apparent, a removing party may support federal jurisdiction by setting forth the facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount.Id. at 1253-54. Removal, however, cannot be based simply upon a defendant's conclusory allegations. Id. 1335.
This is always the case in Louisiana, because the state civil procedure disallows damage claims for specific amounts. See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 893.
In the present case, the plaintiff maintains that on September 24, 2002, the driver's side air bag inflated causing a loud exploding sound in plaintiff's left ear. As a result, the plaintiff has experienced permanent hearing loss. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that a ringing in her left ear occurs frequently and causes her great irritation, annoyance, discomfort, worry, and anxiety. The defendant states that plaintiff's alleged hearing loss injuries exceed the federal jurisdictional amount. The defendant supports its contention by citingDaigle v. Johnson, 633 So.2d 268 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1993) and Blackwell v. St. Remain Oil Co., 651 So.2d 441 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1995).
Although the plaintiff's in both Daigle and Blackwell were awarded in excess of $75,000, those cases did not involve hearing loss claims alone. In Daigle, the plaintiff received $90,000 for cervical and lumbar injuries, permanent hearing loss, and ringing in both ears. Daigle, 633 So.2d 268 at 271. In Blackwell, the plaintiff suffered from permanent hearing loss, ringing in one ear, a concussion, and a fractured skull.Blackwell, 651 So.2d 441 at 442. The court determined that damages equaled $91,901.98, but awarded $50,000 based on a stipulation made by the plaintiff. Id. at 444.
In the present case, the plaintiff's claims are solely for the hearing loss and do not include any additional alleged injuries or damages. Furthermore, upon examination of plaintiff's petition, the Court does not find it facially apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
In conclusion, the Court does not find that it was apparent at the time of removal that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and defendant has not produced evidence establishing that it is more probable than not that plaintiff's claims meet the jurisdictional amount. The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.