Warren v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEBRA WARREN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-4033

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET
AL.

SECTION A(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 7) filed by Plaintiff Debra Warren.
Defendants oppose the motion. The motion, set for submission on December 2, 2015, is before the
Court on the briefs without oral argument. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
I.

Background

This matter arises out of a slip-and-fall that occurred at a gas station owned by Defendant
Murphy Oil. (Rec. Doc. 1-2). According to Plaintiff’s complaint, she sustained severe and
debilitating injuries and seeks damages for the following: past, present, and future physical pain
and suffering; past, present, and future mental anguish and emotional pain; past, present, and future
medical expenses; loss of enjoyment of life; and “other injuries and damages which will be shown
at trial.” (Id. at 6). Defendants removed this action to this Court on September 2, 2015, on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to remand this case, asserting
that Defendants have failed to present evidence showing that the amount in controversy here
exceeds $75,000. (Rec. Doc. 7-1).
II.

Analysis

The Fifth Circuit has articulated an analytical framework “for evaluating jurisdiction for
cases filed in Louisiana state courts, with no monetary amount of damages asserted, when they are
1

removed to federal court on the basis of diversity.” Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848,
850 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999). “In such a
situation, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. (citing Luckett, 171 F.3d at 298). “The defendant may make
this showing in either of two ways: (1) by demonstrating that it is ‘facially apparent’ that the claims
are likely above $75,000, or (2) ‘by setting forth facts in controversy—preferably in the removal
petition, but sometimes by affidavit—that support a finding of the requisite amount.’” Id. (citing
Luckett, 171 F.3d at 298).
Simon is instructive here. In Simon, the Fifth Circuit found that it was not facially apparent
that the plaintiff’s claims likely exceeded $75,000. Id. at 851. The Simon plaintiff’s claims arose
out of an incident that occurred in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Id. at 849-50. As the plaintiff was
walking through the lot, a car drove past her and someone grabbed her purse, causing her to be
dragged alongside the car across a distance of several parking spaces. Id. The plaintiff alleged
“bodily injuries and damages including but not limited to a severely injured shoulder, soft-tissue
injuries throughout her body, bruises, abrasions and other injuries to be shown more fully at trial.”
Id. She also alleged that she “incurred or will incur medical expenses,” and her co-plaintiff alleged
damages for loss of consortium. Id.
The Fifth Circuit case of Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is also instructive. Gebbia, 233
F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2000). Gebbia involved a slip-and-fall. Id. at 881. The plaintiff alleged that she
“sustained injuries to her right wrist, left knee and patella, and upper and lower back.” Id. at 883.
She alleged “damages for medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of wages and earning capacity, and permanent disability

2

and disfigurement.” Id. The court wrote that “[s]uch allegations support a substantially larger
monetary basis to confer removal jurisdiction than the allegations reviewed in Simon.” Id.
The Court finds that the damages in the instant case are more akin to the damages in Simon
than those in Gebbia. In Simon, the plaintiff suffered injuries from being briefly dragged alongside
a car. In Gebbia, the plaintiff alleged “permanent disability and disfigurement,” suggesting a
severe slip-and-fall. Although Plaintiff here suffered a slip-and-fall, the complaint does not allege
permanent disability or an equally grievous injury. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have not
met their burden of showing that the injuries are likely above $75,000.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
January 6, 2016

__________________________________
JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3