James v. Hilton New Orleans Corporation

Filing 16

ORDER & REASONS: denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 2/4/15. (sek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2763

HILTON NEW ORLEANS
CORPORATION

SECTION: “J” (5)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec.
Doc. 9) filed by Plaintiff Matthew James and Defendant Hilton
Management, LLC1 (Hilton)'s opposition thereto. (Rec. Doc. 15)
Having

considered

the

motion

and

memoranda

of

counsel,

the

record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion
should be DENIED for the reasons set forth more fully below.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This litigation commenced when on August 8, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a Petition for Damages in state court. (Rec. Doc. 1-2) In
the petition, Plaintiff alleged that on August 10, 2013, he
tripped and fell over metal piping on the premises of a Hilton
New

Orleans

Riverside

Hotel

parking

garage.

As

a

result,

Plaintiff alleged that he “sustained injuries and damages.” Id.
at 1. Plaintiff sought damages for “past, present and future
mental and physical pain and suffering as well as for his past,
present and future physical disability, his past, present and
1

Plaintiff erroneously named Hilton New Orleans Corporation as Defendant.

future medical expenses, and for any and all amounts . . .
deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances.” See id. at 3.
In accordance with Louisiana law, Plaintiff’s petition did not
specify the amount of the claimed damages. See LA. CODE CIV. PROC.
art. 893. The petition also did not include a statement that the
amount sought satisfied the amount in controversy requirement
for federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
On September 19, 2014, Defendants served interrogatories on
Plaintiff in which Defendants requested an itemized, quantified
damages figure. (Rec. Doc. 15, pp. 2-3) On November 7, 2014,
Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email containing
the medical records and bills from the Ochsner emergency room
and Plaintiff’s treating physician. (Rec. Docs. 1-4, 15-1) The
records

included

an

itemization

of

medical

expenses

totaling

$135,638.35. (Rec. Doc. 1-4) Consequently, Defendant removed the
case

to

federal

court

based

on

diversity

jurisdiction

on

December 5, 2014. (Rec. Doc. 1)
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
jurisdiction

argues

because

that

this

Defendant

Court

has

lacks

failed

to

subject
prove

matter

that

the

amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional requirement.
(Rec.

Doc.

9-1,

pp.

1-2)

Plaintiff

insists

that

Defendant’s

reliance on Plaintiff’s counsel’s November 7, 2014, email is
misguided because the attached medical bills do not reveal that

2

damages

exceed

the

threshold.

Id.

at

3.

Specifically,

the

information therein regarding Plaintiff’s injuries does “not set
forth any ‘underlying facts’ demonstrating that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00." Id. at 2. As such, Defendant’s
assertion

that

the

amount

sought

exceeds

the

jurisdictional

threshold is therefore “pure speculation.” Id. at 3.
Defendant, in its opposition to remand, maintains that the
medical bills totaling $135,638.35, which Plaintiff attributes
to the subject accident, establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence

that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

the

jurisdictional threshold. (Rec. Doc. 15, p. 5) Defendant also
notes that Plaintiff failed to prevent removal by failing “to
include a general allegation that the claim is less than the
requisite amount” in his state petition. Id. Defendant insists
that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the

jurisdictional

threshold

is

met

and

that

Plaintiff

has

failed to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction by demonstrating
to a “legal certainty that damages do not exceed $75,000.” Id.
at 6. Accordingly, Defendant urges this Court to deny the Motion
to Remand filed by Plaintiff. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)

3

(2011).

"A

federal

district

court

has

subject

matter

jurisdiction over a state claim when the amount in controversy
is met and there is complete diversity of citizenship between
the parties." Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397
(5th Cir. 2013). The current amount in controversy requirement
is $75,000. Id. The Court considers the jurisdictional facts
that

support

removal

as

of

the

time

of

removal.

Gebbia

v.

Walmart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000).
When the petition is silent on the exact amount of claimed
damages, the removing party bears the burden of proving “by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.” Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d
864, 868 (5th Cir. 2002)(citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 722–23 (5th Cir.2002); Gebbia, 233
F.3d at 882). The removing party can satisfy this burden either:
(1) by showing that it is “‘facially apparent’ from the petition
that the claim likely exceeds $75,000" or (2) by providing “‘the
facts

in

controversy-preferably

in

the

removal

petition,

but

sometimes by affidavit-that support a finding of the requisite
amount.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d
1326,

1335

(5th

Cir.1995)(emphasis

in

original)(citations

omitted)).
If the removing party can establish by a preponderance of
the

evidence

that

the

amount

4

in

controversy

exceeds

the

requisite

amount,

“[t]he

plaintiff

can

defeat

diversity

jurisdiction only by showing to a ‘legal certainty’ that the
amount

in

controversy

does

not

exceed

$75,000.”

Id.

at

869

(quoting De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir.
1995)). It is well-settled that “this is not a burden-shifting
exercise; rather, the plaintiff must make all information known
at the time he files the complaint.” Id. (quoting De Aguilar, 47
F.3d at 1412)(internal quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
The

Court

must

first

look

to

Plaintiff’s

Petition

for

Damages to determine whether it is “facially apparent” that the
claimed damages exceed $75,000. See Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883. In
this action, Plaintiff’s state court petition demands damages,
including damages for past, present, and future mental anguish,
pain and suffering, medical expenses, as well as for his past,
present, and future physical disability. (Rec. Doc. 1-2, p. 1)
However, the petition does not contain a description of the
nature and the extent of the injury that Plaintiff allegedly
sustained
federal

or

indicate

whether

the

damages

jurisdictional

amount.

Therefore,

sought
despite

exceed

the

Plaintiff’s

description of the damages sought, it is not “facially apparent”
from

the

petition

whether

the

satisfied.

5

jurisdictional

amount

is

Because
apparent”

the

from

amount

in

Plaintiff’s

controversy
petition,

is

the

not

“facially

Court

must

now

determine whether Defendant has established by a preponderance
of the evidence that Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed $75,000.
See Grant, 309 F.3d at 868 (citations omitted). In its Notice of
Removal, Defendant included copies of medical records and bills
sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel, containing
an itemization of medical expenses totaling $135,638.35. (Rec.
Doc. 1-4)
Any evidence submitted after the petition was filed may be
considered if it is relevant to the jurisdictional amount in
question at the time of removal. De Aquilar, 47 F.3d at 1406.
Here, the records which include itemization of medical expenses
for

Plaintiff’s

treatment

immediately

following

the

accident

giving rise to this litigation help to clarify an ambiguous
petition in that they are relevant to the amount in controversy
at

the

time

of

removal.

The

November

7,

2014,

email,

which

revealed accrued expenses of more than $135,000 shows that the
amount

in

controversy

is

met.

Thus,

the

Court

finds

that

Defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
Plaintiff’s claim exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
Because the November 7, 2014, email demonstrated that the
action

satisfies

the

amount

in

controversy

requirement,

this

case should be remanded only if Plaintiff can prove to a “legal

6

certainty” that his recovery will not exceed $75,000. See Grant,
309

F.3d

at

869.

This

may

be

accomplished,

for

example,

by

identifying a statute or by filing a stipulation limiting his
recovery.

De

Aquilar,

47

F.3d

at

1412.

Here,

Plaintiff

has

neither submitted a binding stipulation limiting his recovery
nor relied on a relevant statute, nor has he otherwise proven
that his recovery will not exceed $75,000. Plaintiff cannot meet
this burden by merely asserting that the amount in controversy
is less than $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in
controversy did not exceed the jurisdictional amount at the time
of removal. The Court concludes that there is adequate proof
that

the

amount

in

controversy

at

the

time

of

removal

was

satisfied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to
State Court (Rec. Doc. 9) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of February, 2015.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7