Opinion
Cival Action NO. 01-2604 SECTION "C"
October 17, 2001
This matter comes before the Court on the issue of whether the minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy exists in this removed case. The Fifth Circuit has determined that the district courts should review their subject matter jurisdiction in cases such as this. Luckett v. Delta Airlines. Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999). Although the parties here agree that the jurisdictional minimum exists, they may neither consent to nor waive federal subject matter jurisdiction. Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 193 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999); Luckett, supra.
In order to remain in federal court, the removing parties must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum exists.I.d. This showing may be made by either: (1) demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above the jurisdictional minimum; or (2) setting forth the facts in controversy that support a finding of the jurisdictional minimum. Id. It is the recognized burden of the party invoking jurisdiction "both to allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the right asserted, and, if appropriately challenged, or if inquiry be made by the court of its own motion, to support the allegation." St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 287, fn. 10 (1938),citing, McNutt v. General Motors Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-189 (1936);Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982),cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1107 (1983).
Here, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell at the defendant's store, aggravating preexisting conditions in her neck and back and causing a bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. One wrist has undergone a carpal tunnel release, and a release in the other wrist is recommended.
This is not a situation in which it the existence of the jurisdictional amount is facially apparent. Whether the facts support a finding that the jurisdictional minimum exists is a close one, based on the Court's review of the general damage awards for injuries such as those claimed here, and the fact that removal jurisdiction is strictly construed. See Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941); Brown v. Demco. Inc., 792 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1986); Butler v. Polk, 592 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1979); C. Wright, A. Miller E. Cooper, 14B Federal Practice Procedure: Civil, § 3721.
However, the Court's review of the caselaw sufficiently supports a general damage award of $30,000 per wrist, plus medical expenses in excess of $16,000. See Rollins v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 640 So.2d 432 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 642 So.2d 1291 (La. 1994); Sattler v. Hammond, 640 So.2d 570 (LA. App. 3d Cir. 1994);Cantrelle v. KIVA Construction Engineering, 630 So.2d 265 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1993); Cook v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 540 So.2d 1017 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989); Horn v. City of Lafayette, 578 So.2d 232 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1991). Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the jurisdictional amount exists.