Mateo v. State Farm Insurance Company

Filing 18

ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the parties submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the required amount in controversy existed at the time of removal by 4:30pm on December 2, 2015 re 13 First MOTION to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 11/20/2015.(kac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LEONELA MATEO

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-1244

STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY

SECTION “C” (4)

Order and Reasons
Before the Court is plaintiff Leonela Mateo’s motion to remand the instant case to state
court. See Rec. Doc. 13. Defendant State Farm Insurance Company opposes the motion. See Rec.
Doc. 15. For the following reasons, the Court orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing
on the issue of whether the amount in controversy in this case satisfies jurisdictional
requirements.
I.

Background
Plaintiff’s state court suit against defendant was originally removed to the Court on

October 23, 2014. See Civ. A. 14-2437, Rec. Doc. 1. Finding that defendant had not met its
burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the Court remanded. See Civ.
A. 14-2437, Rec. Doc. 8. On April 20, 2015, defendant once again removed plaintiff’s suit to the
Court. See Rec. Doc. 1. Defendant contended that in the weeks following the Court’s remand
order, plaintiff delivered to defendant a response to defendant’s interrogatories that states that
plaintiff seeks $80,000 in damages. See id. at 3. That response states only that the amount of
damages sought is $80,000 without any additional detail. See Rec. Doc. 1-4 at 7.
On October 2, 2015, almost six months after defendant once again removed the suit,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand. See Rec. Doc. 13. In a three-page memorandum, which recites
only the procedural posture from Civil Action 14-2437, plaintiff contends that “[defendant] has

1

presented no evidence nor has it pointed to anything in the record that proves by a preponderance
of the evidence the required jurisdictional amount.” See id. at 3. Plaintiff concludes with the
following: “Plaintiff is not arguing that the proof is inadequate. She argues that it is nonexistent.” See id.
II.

Discussion
The Court begins by noting that, after signing an interrogatory response stating that

plaintiff seeks over $75,000 in damages, plaintiff’s counsel then filed a cursory motion
effectively stating just the opposite and making no reference to defendant’s grounds for
removing the suit. See generally Rec. Doc. 13. This alone, however, does not settle the matter, in
part because the parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction and in part because the
Court may sua sponte ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Simon v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999). Where, like here, the face of a plaintiff’s
complaint does not allege the specific amount of damages, the party invoking jurisdiction must
prove the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. See St.
Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Rec.
Doc. 1-6. The party invoking jurisdiction meets that burden by presenting “summary judgment
type evidence.” See Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir.
2002).
Here, the Court is not satisfied that the bare assertion that plaintiff seeks $80,000 in
damages––without any accompanying detail––constitutes the summary judgment type evidence
needed for the Court to conclude it has jurisdiction. As discussed in the Court’s order in Civil
Action 14-2437, the face of plaintiff’s complaint merely states that she suffered an auto theft and
“personal injuries, mental anguish, inconvenience, and sustained financial losses.” See Rec. Doc.

2

1-6 at 3; see also Civ. A. 14-2437, Rec. Doc. 8. Plaintiff’s complaint also states that defendant
“received adequate proof of loss demonstrating petitioner’s damages,” yet defendant’s second
notice of removal cites only plaintiff’s response as establishing adequate proof of the
jurisdictional amount. See id. at 3–4; see also Rec. Doc. 15. Without a stronger showing of
summary judgment type evidence, the Court will not readily conclude that it actually has
jurisdiction. As such, the Court orders the parties to provide additional briefing and any
supporting evidence on the amount in controversy.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit supplemental briefing on the issue of
whether the required amount in controversy existed at the time of removal by 4:30pm on
December 2, 2015.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of November, 2015.

____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3