Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-649
July 5, 2000
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Remand which was formally opposed by the defendants, Abel Prieto, M.P. Transport Corporation and General Security Company. Plaintiff, Carl Lonon, through counsel of record additionally filed a formal stipulation stating that the damages he complains of in the captioned matter are insufficient to meet the jurisdictional minimum (i.e., not more than $75,000.00). For the following reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
Plaintiff further stipulates that in the event that defendants receive a judgment in excess of $75,000, that he waives his right to recover any amount in excess of that amount and that he will take no action in any court, federal or state, to execute, enforce, or record any judgment for matters sued upon herein i excess of the aforesaid amount of $75,000.00.
I. BACKGROUND
The action was filed originally in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa on December 1, 1999. Plaintiff complains that due to the negligence of the defendants in causing a rear-end truck collision on December 19, 1999, plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries and property damages, specifically: "cervical sprain/strain, back strain and other injuries to be proven at the time of trial." See Plaintiff's Petition for Damages, at para. 7. Plaintiff's petition does not seek a specific amount of damages. It does not contain a demand for trial by jury most apparently in light of the damages at issue. Plaintiff offered to settle the case in its entirety for an amount just shy of $18,000.00.
See, Petition for Damages [Defendants' Exhibit "A"].
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1732(1) entitled "Limitation upon jury trials" states that a trial by jury shall not be available in "[a] suit where the amount of no individual petitioner's cause of action exceeds fifty thousand dollars, exclusive of interests and costs."
Defendants removed the plaintiff's suit on the basis of diversity jurisdiction (i.e., complete diversity and the requisite jurisdictional amount exceeding $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs). Plaintiffs timely filed the subject motion to remand.
II. ANALYSIS.
The thrust of plaintiff's motion to remand is that his claims herein could not possibly exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff has entered into a binding stipulation that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00, and that he waives recovery of any amount in excess of said amount, exclusive of interest and costs.
In opposition, defendants argue that the facts recited plaintiff's original state court petition make it apparent that the amount in controversy at the time of removal exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Defendant also submits summary judgment type evidence to support its argument that in light the serious injuries and permanent impairment complained of plaintiff may well recover an amount exceeding $75,000.00.
Motions to remand form 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. Section 1332(a) prescribes subject matter jurisdiction over claims removed where the is complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00.
In the case at bar diversity of citizenship is undisputed. The only issue before this Court is whether the plaintiff's state court petition reveals an amount in controversy which exceeds $75,000.00 as of the time of the removal.
The removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00). A defendant may make this showing by demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or by setting forth facts in controversy to support a finding that the requisite jurisdictional amount is satisfied. Summary judgment-like evidence may be used to establish the amount in controversy.
See, Luckett v. Delta Airlines, 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999).
See, Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999).
See, St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).
The plaintiff's petition in this case alleges damages with little specificity. The only specific injuries alleged are neck and back strain/sprain. No injuries of a specific nature were alleged that would support a large enough damage award to support federal jurisdiction or an award for permanent disability or for loss of earning capacity. While plaintiff's petition alleges "serious" injury, this Court has yet to see one personal injury complaint/petition which does not allege the injuries are serious and medical treatment is on-going, along with the usual pain, suffering, mental anguish, and of course, emotional distress.
Plaintiff has convinced this Court that this is not federal case and at no time did it measure up in terms of quantum. Although this rear-end collision involved freightliners it could hardly be described as a violent event so as to be sufficient to establish an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00. It is not apparent on the face of the plaintiff's petition that the amount of damages will exceed $75,000.00.
The Court decision takes into consideration the fact that plaintiff's medical bills total approximately $1,783.25. Also, noteworthy is plaintiff's settlement offer in the full amount of $17,929.28 to which defendants responded with a counter offer in the full amount of $500.00. The amount of a settlement offer "is valuable evidence to indicate the amount in controversy at the time of removal." Also, plaintiff has stipulated through counsel, in no uncertain terms, that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
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)).
Accordingly and for all of the above and foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED and this action is hereby remanded to the Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa.