McCloud v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter) (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANGIENIKA McCLOUD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-11774

NOAH DAVID REILLY &
PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE
INSURANCE CO..

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Plaintiff,
Angienika McCloud. Defendants Noah Reilly and Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.
oppose the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on March 21, 2018, is before the
Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff initiated this suit in state court against Defendants for personal injuries
that she claims to have sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Defendants removed thie
suit to federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Plaintiff moves to remand the case back to state court contending that
Defendants have not met their burden as to the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
It is well-established that the party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court has
the burden of proving that the exercise of such jurisdiction is proper. St. Paul Reins. Co.
v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occid.
S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1961)). Any doubt regarding whether removal
jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against federal jurisdiction and in favor of
1

remand. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Willy v.
Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir.1988)).
In Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., the Fifth Circuit summarized the analytical
framework for determining whether the amount in controversy requirement is met in
cases removed from Louisiana state courts where specific allegations as to damage
quantum are not allowed. 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). In such cases, the
removing defendant, as the party invoking jurisdiction in a federal court, bears the
burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Id. (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993)).
As the Fifth Circuit explained:
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 the facts in controversy B preferably in the
removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit B that support a finding of the
requisite amount.
Id. (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995)); Gebbia v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 882 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the instant case there is no disputing that the amount in controversy is not
facially apparent from Plaintiff=s petition. Plaintiff alleges only that she “sustained
personal injuries requiring care and treatment.” (Rec. doc. 2-3 at 2 ¶ 7). The petition
offers no specifics whatsoever as to the extent of her injuries. Defendants admit as
much in their opposition. (Rec. Doc. 13 at 3) (“Plaintiff in this case was vague in her
petition as to the nature of her injuries and listed nothing regarding which portions of her
body were allegedly injured in the accident.”).
2

Further, the notice of removal does not set forth any facts to support a finding
that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.
Defendants point out both in the notice of removal and in their opposition,
however, that when responding to requests for admission prior to removal, Plaintiff
answered “Denied” to the following statement:
“Please admit that your damages are less than Seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000).” (Rec. Doc. 13-1 Exhibit A).
Defendants contend that this admission establishes that Plaintiff’s damages
exceed $75,000, and therefore demonstrates that the Court had jurisdiction at the time
of removal.
To the contrary, this admission does not establish that the amount in controversy
at the time of removal exceeded $75,000 because the admission is also consistent with
an amount in controversy that equals $75,000, which is insufficient to support removal.
In sum, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction.1
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Plaintiff,

Plaintiff did not take issue with Defendants’ allegations as to citizenship and Defendants
suggest that this reticence indicates acquiescence in compete diversity. (Rec. Doc. 13 at 3)
(“She makes no argument as to whether the defendant parties are diverse to her thus
meting [sic] the one of the two requirements of the statute that give the court jurisdiction.”).
To the contrary, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived, and courts have
an independent obligation to determine whether it exists even in the absence of a challenge
from any party. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing United States v.
Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583
(1999)).
1

3

Angienika McCloud is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the state court from
which it was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1447(c) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
April 2, 2018

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4