Barfield et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 1/26/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(kac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID BARFIELD AND KEMBERLY
BARFIELD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2601

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

SECTION “C” (4)

ORDER
The Court previously ordered briefing on whether the jurisdictional minimum existed at
the time of removal. Rec. Doc. 4. Before the Court is defendants' memorandum in support of
removal, plaintiffs having submitted no memorandum.
The parties may neither consent to nor waive federal subject matter jurisdiction. Simon v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999). Instead, the Fifth Circuit advises the district
courts that they should review their subject matter jurisdiction in cases such as this. Id.; Luckett
v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999). In order to remain in federal court, the
removing parties must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum
exists. Id. 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).
Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the jurisdictional minimum
existed at the time of removal. Defendants submit that David Barfield has undergone several
medical procedures, including x-rays, MRIs and epidural injections to treat an LR-L5 disc
herniation. Rec. Doc. 7 at 2-3. To date, medical expenses have totaled $17,477.32. Id. at 4.
Defendants also state that Barfield may be a candidate for surgery if his current course of
injections does not provide sufficient relief. Id. However, as defendants admit, surgery at this
point is speculative. Thus, without further evidence that the amount in controversy is likely to
exceed $75,000, the Court finds that the parties have not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional minimum exists.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter be and hereby is REMANDED to the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, due to a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of January, 2015.

__________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE