Atkins, et al v. Ferro Corporation

Filing 920090311

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 08-30295 March 10, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

RODNEY ATKINS; HEBERT L. BREAUX; RAYMOND AUSTIN; DEMOND BANKS; JOHN L. BOOKER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ********** JACQUELINE T. SPEARS; SIMON P. ARMWOOD; JANICE BARKLER; ARCHIE L. BORSKEY; JOE L. CLARK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. **********

********** JOSHUA ASHLEY; MICHAEL BELL; BRIAN BENENUTI; ALLEN BABIN; COREY BROWN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ED FRINDT, Ferro Corporation, Plant Manager, Defendant-Appellee. ********** PAUL BAKER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ********** JOSHUA ASHLEY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. **********

2

********** WILL GASPARD; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ED FRINDT, Plant Manager; FERRO CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana No. 3:03-CV-945

Before SMITH, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

The parties dispute whether the amount in controversy is sufficient for diversity jurisdiction. We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We also have consulted applicable sources of law. We can look to similar cases to assist in determining the amount in contro-

Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.

*

3

08-30295 versy. See, e.g., Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81, 82-83 (5th Cir. 1993). This case is largely controlled and informed by No. 07-30530, In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 2009). The district court, albeit without benefit of the decision in Exxon, correctly decided that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Because plaintiffs presented no expert testimony in support of causation, there is no error in the summary judgment to Ferro Corporation. See Allen v. Pa. Eng'g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

4