Thirty Twenty N. Arnoult Road, LLC v. Micros Systems Inc. of Maryland

Filing 11

ORDER AND REASONS granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter) (tsf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THIRTY TWENTY N. ARNOULT ROAD,
L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-1635

MICROS SYSTEMS INC. OF MARYLAND

SECTION “F”

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff's motion to remand.

For

the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
Thirty Twenty N. Arnoult Road, LLC sued Micro Systems, Inc. in
the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson for
breach of contract based on the defendant’s alleged failure to make
certain repairs.

The plaintiff claims $66,827.90 in damages and

also seeks attorney’s fees.

Contending that amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000 in light of the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s
fees, the defendant timely removed on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.

Plaintiff disagrees, and now seeks remand.1
Law & Analysis
I.

For a defendant to invoke the Court's removal jurisdiction
based on diversity, “the diverse defendant must demonstrate that

1

Neither party disputes that complete diversity is
present: the plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana, and the
defendant is a resident of Maryland.
1

all of the prerequisites of diversity jurisdiction contained in 28
U.S.C. § 1332 are satisfied” including that the minimum amount in
controversy exceed $75,000.

Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.,

Inc., 385 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc).

In evaluating

the jurisdictional amount, the Court may consider a claim for
attorney’s fees, so long as such a claim has a basis under the law.
See Foret v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 918 F.2d 534 (5th
Cir. 1990).
But,

removal

allegations.’”

“‘cannot

be

based

simply

upon

conclusory

Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774

(5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326,
1335 (5th Cir. 1995)).

If any doubt remains as to jurisdiction,

the Court should construe ambiguities against removal, Butler v.
Polk, 592 F.2d 1293, 1296 (5th Cir. 1979), and remand.

York v.

Horizon Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 712 F. Supp. 85, 87 (E.D. La.
1989); see also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100
(1941).
II.
Here the defendant asserts that the jurisdictional minimum is
met

because

the

plaintiff

seeks

attorney’s

fees.

defendant’s claim is deficient in two respects.

But

the

First, the

defendant fails to show that the plaintiff is conceivably entitled
to attorney’s fees under the law.

Without such a basis, the Court

cannot include the theoretical attorney’s fees in its jurisdiction

2

calculus.
Second, the defendant fails to support its assertions that
attorney’s

fees

would

raise

the

jurisdictional

amount

in

controversy to at least $75,000 with anything other than conclusory
allegations.

The defendant merely states the type of activities

within this case for which the plaintiff could seek attorney’s fees
without explaining the fees associated with each type of activity.
For example, the defendant limply asserts that “a case that
will involve reasonable discovery will likely result in attorneys’
fees incurred that will exceed $8,200” and “it is reasonable to
expect that in this case there will be at least two depositions”
and “[t]here will necessarily be some written discovery.” And, the
defendant offers that “through application of typical attorney fee
rates in the current market, the amount of such fees will likely
exceed $8,200.”

But the defendant does not explain what typical

fee rates are for this market; nor does it explain with any
specificity what an expected fee award could be in a case such as
this one.

It merely asks the Court to accept its speculation as

sufficient basis to maintain jurisdiction.

Id. at 774.

The

defendant has not met its burden.
With doubts remaining as to jurisdiction due to the inadequate
briefing before it, the Court construes, as it must, ambiguities
against removal, Butler, 592 F.2d at 1296, and remands.
F. Supp. at 87; see also Sheets, 313 U.S. 100.

3

York, 712

IT IS ORDERED: The motion is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to
the 24th Judicial District of the Parish of Jefferson.

New Orleans, Louisiana, September 1, 2011.

____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4