Klink v. Moore, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER AND REASONS granting 7 Motion to Remand to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/30/2018. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BELINDA KLINK

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-2906

ZALEN MOORE AND KNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION, INC.

SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The parties jointly move to remand this case to state court. 1 For the
following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident between plaintiff

Belinda Klink and defendant Zalen Moore on February 21, 2017.2 Moore was
driving a truck owned by defendant Knight Transportation, Inc. 3 Plaintiff
allegedly sustained injuries to her neck, head, extremities, and back because
of the accident.4
Plaintiff sued Moore and Knight Transportation in state court on
February 21, 2018. Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 19,

1
2
3
4

R. Doc. 7.
R. Doc. 1-1 at 1.
Id.
Id. at 2.

2018, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiff has stipulated that her
damages do not exceed $75,000.6 In light of this stipulation, the parties
jointly move to remand the case to state court.7

II.

DISCUSSION
Unless a federal statute expressly provides otherwise, a defendant may

remove a civil action filed in state court to federal court if the federal court
would have had original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The
removing party “bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists
and that removal was proper.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d
392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). In assessing whether removal was
appropriate, the Court is guided by the principle, grounded in notions of
comity and the recognition that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, that “removal statute[s] should be strictly construed in favor of
remand.” Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc.,
200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).

5
6
7

R. Doc. 1 at 2.
R. Doc. 7-2.
R. Doc. 7.
2

District courts have original jurisdiction over cases between citizens of
different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. “The jurisdictional facts that support removal” must exist at the time
of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir.
2000). “Because plaintiffs in Louisiana state courts, by law, may not specify
the numerical value of claimed damages, the removing defendant must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.” Id. at 882 (citing La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 893.). Courts may
consider post-removal stipulations by plaintiffs as to the amount in
controversy “only if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of
removal.” Id. at 883. But “if it is facially apparent from the petition that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal,” postremoval stipulations cannot deprive a federal court of jurisdiction. Id.
The amount in controversy is not facially apparent from plaintiffs’
petition. Plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish,
medical expenses, disability, and loss of quality of life. 8 While such damages
could support a higher award, the state court petition does not suggest that
plaintiff’s injuries were severe enough to justify damages exceeding $75,000.
See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 851 (5th Cir. 1999)

8

R. Doc. 1-1 at 2-3.
3

(finding that amount of controversy above $75,000 was not facially apparent
from complaint that “alleged, with little specificity, damages from less severe
physical injuries”). Thus, it is not facially apparent from plaintiff’s petition
that she seeks damages exceeding $75,000.
Because the basis for jurisdiction was ambiguous at the time of
removal, the Court may consider the post-removal stipulation executed by
plaintiff.

This stipulation clearly limits the damages plaintiff seeks to

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 9 Given this stipulation, and given
the lack of any evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the
Court finds that remand is proper because there is no basis upon which to
conclude that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa.

30th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of April, 2018.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9

R. Doc. 4-1.
4