Murphy v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER denying 13 MOTION to Remand filed by James C Murphy. Signed by Judge Tucker L Melancon on 6/20/2010. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A K E CHARLES DIVISION J a m e s C. Murphy v e rs u s S ta te Farm Life Insurance Co. C iv il Action 2:09-1161 J u d g e Tucker L. Melançon M a g is tra te Judge Hanna

M E M O R A N D U M RULING AND ORDER B e fo re the Court is plaintiff James C. Murphy's Motion for Remand [Rec. Doc. 13] an d defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company's opposition thereto [Rec. Doc. 15]. S ta te Farm removed this action from the Thirty-eighth Judicial District for the Parish of C a m e ro n , State of Louisiana on July 14, 2009 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). R. 1. On D e c em b e r 30, 2009, the magistrate judge assigned to this case conducted a Jurisdictional A m o u n t Review and ruled that the requisite jurisdictional amount was established based on p la in tif f' s Petition. R. 10. The Petition alleges that State Farm insured plaintiff's property, a home, and all contents with the following coverage: 1) $107,400.00 for his dwelling; 2) $ 1 0 ,7 4 0 .0 0 for other structures located on the covered property; and, 3) $80,550.00 for his p e rs o n a l property and actual loss of use of the covered property for 12 months. R. 1-3. The P e titio n further alleges that the covered property and all contents were "totally destroyed by H u rric a n e Ike," the home was "rendered uninhabitable" and that State Farm owes the extent o f its policy limits as well as statutory damages and attorney's fees pursuant to LSA-R.S. 2 2 :6 5 8 and 22:1220. Id. Plaintiff filed this motion to remand on May 26, 2010 stating that, "the amount in c o n tro v e rs y is less than the jurisdictional minimum required to establish subject matter

ju ris d ic tio n ." R. 13. Plaintiff attached an Affidavit to the motion stating "he waives his rig h ts to recover all other damages to which they [sic] may be entitled to against State Farm In s u ra n c e Company that exceeds [] $75,000.00, including penalties and attorney's fees, and e x c lu d in g interests and cost; and he further agrees that he will not seek in the future the e n fo rc e m e n t of any judgment that is over [] $75,000.00, excluding interest and costs." Id. T h e jurisdictional facts must be judged at the time of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart S to r e s, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir.2000). Although a court may consider post-removal ev iden ce that clarifies the jurisdictional facts as they existed at the time of removal, a court m a y not consider post-removal events in determining whether the amount in controversy is m e t. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-54 & n. 18 (5th C ir.1 9 9 8 ). A unilateral stipulation may, however, permit a remand in cases in which the s tip u la tio n is used to clarify an ambiguous petition, rather than to reduce the initial amount in controversy after removal. Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81, 85 (5 th Cir. 1993); Associacion N a cio n a l de Pescadores v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A., 988 F.2d 559, 565 (5th C ir.1 9 9 3 ) (In determining whether remand is proper, a court may consider an affidavit c la rify in g a petition that previously left the jurisdictional question ambiguous.). In this case, the Court determined from the face of plaintiff's Petition that the ju ris d ic tio n a l amount was established at the time of removal. Greenberg, 134 F.3d at 1253 (In determining the amount in controversy, the complaint is first examined to determine w h e th e r it is "facially apparent" that the claim exceeds the jurisdictional amount). If the a m o u n t in controversy is clear from the face of the state court petition, as it is here, p o s t-re m o v a l stipulations, affidavits, and amendments purporting to reduce the amount of d a m a g e s sought by the plaintiff cannot deprive a federal court of jurisdiction. St. Paul 2

M e rc u ry Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 292; Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why, contrary to its Petition, its claims are now u n d e r $75,000. If a claim of the required jurisdictional amount is apparently made in good f a ith , that claim controls unless it appears "to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less th a n the jurisdictional amount." St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. at 289. The "legal c e rta in ty " standard requires that plaintiff show state law operates to prevent recovery in e x c es s of the federal jurisdictional amount or that plaintiff is "bound irrevocably" to recover a n amount less than the federal jurisdictional amount. See De Aguilar v. Boeing, 47 F.3d 1 4 0 4 , 1412 (5th Cir.1995) (Aguilar II). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with evidence s h o w in g either. The Court finds that the federal jurisdictional amount requirement is met in this case, a n d therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A c c o rd in g ly , it is O R D E R E D that plaintiff's Motion For Remand [Rec. Doc. 13] is DENIED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Lafayette, Louisiana this 20 th day of June, 2010.

3