Toussant v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 12/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(kac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DERICK TOUSSANT

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-5479

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.

SECTION “C”(5)
Order and Reasons

Before the Court are the memorandum of counsel directed at the issue of whether the
jurisdictional minimum existed at the time of removal. See Rec. Docs. 7 & 8. Because the Court
concludes that the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy did not exist at the time of
removal, the Court now REMANDS the instant matter to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
I.

Background
On August 17, 2015, plaintiff Derick Toussant filed a petition for damages in the Civil

District Court for the Parish of Orleans against his former employer and defendant, Wal-Mart
Associates, Inc.. See Rec. Doc. 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that, following an on-the-job injury, he was
wrongfully terminated. See id. at 1–2. Plaintiff seeks relief under Louisiana law. See id. at 3.
On October 26, 2015, defendant removed plaintiff’s action to the Court. See Rec. Doc. 1.
Defendant’s stated ground for removal is that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, because there
is over $75,000 in controversy and the parties are diverse. See id. On November 3, 2015, the
Court ordered the parties to brief whether the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy
existed at the time of removal. See Rec. Doc. 5. Both plaintiff and defendant subsequently
submitted briefs. See Rec. Docs. 7 & 8.

1

II.

Standard of Review
District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity between all parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction and 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).1 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. 1-2. 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); see also Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc.,
171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999).
III.

Discussion
The parties apparently agree that at least roughly $20,000––one year’s salary for

plaintiff––is actually in controversy. See Rec. Docs. 7 at 2 & 8 at 2. Though not plaintiff’s
burden to bear, plaintiff persuasively addresses the unlikelihood that damages will exceed
$75,000 in this case. See Rec. Doc. 7 at 2. Defendant, on the other hand, presents only the
vaguest argument that damages “could potentially exceed $75,000,” because of plaintiff’s abuse
of rights claim. Rec. Doc. 8 at 2. Defendant provides no factual basis for the argument and cites
only one, remarkably distinguishable case. See id.; see also Huey v. Super Fersh/Save-a-Center
Inc., Civ. A. No. 07-1169, 2009 WL 3834218, 2009 WL 3834275 (E.D.La. Nov. 11, 2009). The
1
Without clearly stating it as an argument, defendant apparently suggests that it is somehow significant that plaintiff
did not move for remand within thirty days of defendant removing the action. See Rec. Doc. 8 at 2. Setting aside that
a court may (as the Court has here) question its own subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, the Court is aware of no
legal requirement that a party seeking remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction move to remand within thirty
days. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject
matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal . . .).

2

Court concludes that defendant has not met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY BY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter, Case Number 15-5479,
is REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of December, 2015.

______________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3