Stewart v. Springhill SMC, LLC et al
Filing
24
SUA SPONTE ORDER: The Court notes the potential insufficiency of the alleged amount in controversy, which formed the basis for removal of the instant matter to this Court from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisian a. If parties wish to show that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper, Defendants Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc. and Dimension Development Two, LLC shall, on or before 5/19/2015, file into the record a memorandum concern ing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. The memorandum shall contain facts supporting a finding of the requisite amount in controversy, with supplementary documentation as necessary. If any sensitive information is to be filed e.g., medical information Defendants may file under seal. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 5/11/2015. (LLH) Modified on 5/11/2015 (LLH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TEDDIE ANN STEWART
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
SPRINGHILL SMC, LLC, ET AL.
NO.: 13-00711-BAJ-SCR
SUA SPONTE ORDER
The Court sua sponte notes the potential insufficiency of the alleged amount
in controversy, which formed the basis for removal of the instant matter to this
Court from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The notice of removal invoked general diversity jurisdiction, as described in 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 20).1
The Court ordinarily consults the state court petition to determine the
amount in controversy. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250,
1253 (5th Cir. 1998). However, Louisiana prohibits plaintiffs from petitioning for a
specific monetary amount. See La. C.C.P. art. 893(A)(1). Therefore, where, as here,
the petition does not include a specific monetary demand, the removing party must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. See De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995).
This requirement is met if (1) it is apparent from the face of the petition that the
claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or, alternatively, (2) the defendant sets forth
“summary judgment type evidence” of facts in controversy that support a finding of
1
No motion to remand was filed in this matter.
1
the requisite amount. See Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d
720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002); Simon v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir.
1999); Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
Here, it is hardly apparent from the face of Plaintiff Teddie Ann Stewart’s
petition that her claims exceed $75,000. Stewart’s petition alleges that Stewart,
upon stepping into a bathtub, “slipped on the cleaning solution and fell on her
back.” (Doc. 1-4 at ¶ 7). As a result of the described incident, Stewart claims she
“sustained injuries including, but not limited to back pain, neck pain, and wrist
pain.” (Id. at ¶ 14). The petition contains no further specificity regarding the
duration or severity of her injuries. The stated damages are too vague to provide the
Court with the requisite degree of confidence that the petition, standing alone,
makes out a claim for greater than $75,000.
Likewise, the notice of removal and accompanying materials are insufficient
to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard. On the amount in
controversy, the removing defendants made the representation that “Plaintiff’s
counsel advised that damages exceed $75,000 such that removal is proper” and
directed the Court to the attached Exhibit B. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18). Upon inspection,
however, Exhibit B only reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to stipulate that
damages would not exceed $75,000—a marked distinction. (Doc. 1-4 at p. 8). The
notice of removal fails to set forth additional facts regarding the amount in
controversy but merely asserts in a conclusory fashion that the amount has been
met.
2
“[R]emoval cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations.” Felton v.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotations
marks omitted). Recognizing that the remaining defendants in this matter are not
the removing defendants,2 the Court shall grant Defendants an opportunity to set
forth “summary judgment type evidence” of facts in controversy that support a
finding of the threshold amount.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, if they wish to show that federal jurisdiction exists
and that removal was proper, Defendants Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc.
and Dimension Development Two, LLC shall, on or before May 19, 2015, file into
the record a memorandum concerning the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter. The memorandum shall contain facts supporting a finding of the
requisite amount in controversy, with supplementary documentation as necessary.
If any sensitive information is to be filed—e.g., medical information—Defendants
may file under seal.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2015.
_____________________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
The removing defendants, Springhill SMC, LLC, d/b/a Springhill Suites by Marriott and Marriott
International, Inc., have since been dismissed upon motion by Stewart. (See Docs. 6, 9). The only
remaining defendants in this matter, Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc. and Dimension
Development Two, LLC, were not added as parties to this suit until Stewart amended her complaint
following the filing of the notice of removal. (See Doc. 2).
2
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?