Summary
granting remand where the pre-petition settlement offer was for $50,000
Summary of this case from Watts v. HarrisonOpinion
Civil Action No. 99-0894 Section "N"
May 1, 2000
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and thus defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT, as this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.
BACKGROUND
This action was filed originally in state court on February 18, 1999. In their state court petition, plaintiffs state that they were injured when they were stabbed by a guest of the Intercontinental Hotel located at 444 St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiffs were / also guests of the hotel at the time of the stabbings. Plaintiffs alleged damages including "stab wounds, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and distress, medical expenses, permanent scarring and loss of enjoyment of life." Plaintiffs petition does not seek a specific amount of damages, but does contain a demand for trial by jury.
Defendant removed plaintiffs' suit on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendant's Notice of Removal asserted the conclusory statement that "[t]he matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs." Plaintiffs recently filed their Motion to Remand on April 3, 2000, and defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on April 4, 2000.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs move this Court to remand their case to state court on the ground that their claims do not meet the requisite jurisdictional requirement of $75,000. Plaintiffs argue that their medical expenses were minimal and that no claims are made for lost wages. Thus, they assert that the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent. Plaintiff also offer to stipulate that the amount in controversy at the time of filing and removal did not exceed $75,000.00, and that in the event that this action is remanded, each plaintiff agrees to waive any recovery in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
In opposition, defendant argues that the facts recited in plaintiffs' original state court petition make it apparent that the amount in controversy at the time of removal exceeds the statutory amount in controversy. Defendant points out that plaintiffs' state court petition included a demand for trial by jury. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1732(1), a civil jury trial is available only in cases where the amount of an individual's cause of action exceeds $50,000.00. Thus, defendant argues, and the Court agrees, that plaintiffs' petition states a claim with an amount in controversy in excess of $50,000.00. Defendant also asserts that plaintiffs' stipulation comes too late. Defendant argues further that plaintiffs' petition states a claim for personal injuries and pain and suffering sustained as a result of violent stabbings. Defendant submits summary judgment-type evidence as well — deposition testimony — to support its argument that plaintiffs seek recovery in excess of $75,000.00 because of their claims for emergency medical treatment, hospitalization, emotional distress and permanent disfigurement. Defendant states that such evidence is compelling evidence of serious claims.
Motions to remand from a federal district court to a state court are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which states: "If, at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." Id. This Court may maintain subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship only if the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the parties do not contest diversity of citizenship, and thus the sole issue before the Court is whether plaintiffs' state court petition stated an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00 at the time of removal. See Miranti v. Lee, 3 F.3d 925, 928 (5th Cir. 1993).
It is well settled that the removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See Luckett v. Delta Airlines, 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408-11 (5th Cir. 1995). The defendant may make this showing by demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000.00, or by setting forth facts in controversy to support a finding that the requisite jurisdictional amount is satisfied. See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999); Luckett, 171 F.3d at 298. The Court may rely on summary judgment-like evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).
Here, defendant did not set forth facts in controversy in its Notice of Removal. Nor has defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the requisite amount in controversy is facially apparent from plaintiffs' state court petition. The plaintiffs' petition alleges damages with little specificity. In addition, plaintiffs' motion states that medical expenses are minimal, and defendant has not submitted evidence to this Court to contradict that statement. In fact, the Court has no summary judgment-like evidence before it on the amount of damages sought that might support a large monetary basis for diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no claim for wage loss or future medical expenses, and the unspecified pain and suffering and emotional distress are claims of unknown quantities. A review of Louisiana case law reveals a host of cases in which plaintiffs with similar injuries received under $75,000.00 in general damages for similar injuries. Defendant fails to cite even one case upon which this Court could rely in support of the argument that descriptions of violent events are sufficient to establish an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00. Thus, in the absence of evidence of the true value of plaintiffs' claims, the Court concludes that it is far from apparent on the face of plaintiffs' petition that the amount of damages will exceed $75,000.00.
The Court also takes into consideration plaintiffs' settlement demand letter. Plaintiffs have offered to settle each claim for $50,000.00. The amount of a settlement offer "is valuable evidence to indicate the amount in controversy at the time of removal." Fairchild v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 907 F. Supp. 969, 971 (M.D. La. 1995) (citing Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 651 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1994)). The Court also remains mindful that removal jurisdiction is strictly construed. See Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1988). Because defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy is likely to exceed $75,000.00, accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to REMAND is GRANTED, and this case is hereby REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, because this Court does not have subject matter over plaintiffs' claims, that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.