Broussard v. Jefferson et al
Filing
16
ORDER & REASONS that Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Remand is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 2/18/16. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PAVIA BROUSSARD
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 15-5308
TIFFANY JEFFERSON ET AL.
SECTION "L" (1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 10). For the following reasons,
the motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff, Pavia Broussard, filed suit in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans alleging injuries stemming from an automobile collision occurring in
Orleans Parish, Louisiana on December 14, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Tiffany
Jefferson, was negligently driving his work vehicle (owned by Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.),
when he “violently struck” Plaintiff’s vehicle while she was driving east on Interstate 610. (R.
Doc. 1-2). In her petition, Plaintiff sought damages for (a) mental pain and suffering; (b) physical
pain and suffering; (c) medical expenses; (d) inconvenience; (e) property damages; (f) loss of
enjoyment of life; (g) loss of earning capacity and (h) bad faith penalties and attorney’s fees. Id.
In accordance with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 893, Plaintiff did not plead a
specific damage amount in his petition.
Defendants, Tyson Food and Tiffany Jefferson, filed a Notice of Removal on October 20,
2015. Invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction, Defendant asserted that “the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000” and “complete diversity of citizenship exists among the parties.”
(R. Doc. 1). On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000. Defendants oppose remand, maintaining that it is “facially
apparent” that Plaintiff's claims exceed $75,000.
II.
ANALYSIS
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant
... to the district court.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (1994). District courts have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions between citizens of different states in which the matter in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The removing party bears the burden of proving that a
district court has jurisdiction over a matter. See Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815
(5th Cir.1993).
In this case, complete diversity exists and removal is contested solely on the basis of
jurisdictional amount, i.e., whether the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. Because plaintiffs
in Louisiana state courts may not specify the numerical value of a damage claim, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals has established a clear analytic framework for resolving jurisdictional
disputes over the amount in controversy when, as here, no monetary amount of damages is
asserted. Luckett v. Delta Airlines, 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1999). A defendant removing
action to federal court on basis of diversity jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, either by demonstrating that it is
facially apparent that the claims are likely above $75,000, or by setting forth the facts in
controversy, preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit, that support a finding
of the requisite amount. Id. If a defendant satisfies this burden, the plaintiff must then prove “to
a legal certainty” that the claim is less than $75,000. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404,
1412 (5th Cir.1995).
2
In this case, Plaintiff seeks damages for a variety of injuries and losses including mental
and physical pain and suffering, medical expenses, property damage, loss of enjoyment of life,
and loss of earning capacity. These alleged losses stem from a “violent collision” between
Plaintiff’s Chevrolet Trailbazer and Defendants’ Freightline Cascadia truck. In addition to these
alleged injuries, Plaintiff also seeks bad faith penalties and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Although the allegations
in Plaintiff's petition are somewhat generic, it is “facially apparent” that her claims are likely
above $75,000. Plaintiff seeks damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity, property damage, and medical expenses stemming
from a violent collision on the interstate as well as bad faith penalties and attorney’s fees.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 18th day of February, 2016.
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?