Hodnett et al v. Logans Roadhouse Inc et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM RULING re 6 MOTION to Remand filed by Dorris Hodnett, Gerald W Hodnett. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is hereby GRANTED and this matter remanded to the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 9/25/15. (crt,Crawford, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
GERALD W. HODNETT, ET AL.
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2158
VERSUS
*
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
LOGAN’S ROADHOUSE, INC., ET
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
AL.
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the undersigned magistrate judge, on reference from the district court, is a motion
to remand [doc. # 6] filed by plaintiffs Gerald W. Hodnett and Dorris Hodnett.1 The motion is
opposed. For reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
On July 1, 2015, Gerald Hodnett and Dorris Hodnett, husband and wife (collectively, “the
Hodnetts”), filed the instant petition for damages in the 4th Judicial District Court, for the Parish
of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, against defendants, Logan’s Roadhouse, Inc., and its unknown
liability insurer, XYZ Insurance Co. The Hodnetts allege that on, or about July 4, 2014, Gerald
Hodnett suffered “significant injury” when he slipped and fell on a slippery, clear substance at
Logan’s Roadhouse’s West Monroe, Louisiana location. Specifically, Gerald Hodnett sustained
“severe injuries, including pain in the neck, right leg, right knee, low back, right shoulder and
right hand, as well as fractured wrist,” resulting in “residual disability, physical pain and
1
As this is not a motion excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any
claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this
court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R.
74.1(W).
suffering, mental anguish and distress, medical expenses, disability and loss of past earnings.”
(Petition, ¶ 7). Dorris Hodnett seeks recovery for her loss of consortium. Id., ¶ 9. The Hodnetts
attribute the accident, and their resulting damages, to a defective condition on Logan’s
Roadhouse premises for which it is responsible. Id., ¶ 4.
On August 7, 2015, Logan’s Roadhouse removed the case to federal court on the sole
basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal). On September 4, 2015,
plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand the case to state court because the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000, and therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Logan’s Roadhouse filed its opposition on September 14, 2015. Plaintiffs did not file a reply
brief, and the time to do so has lapsed. (Notice of Motion Setting [doc. # 7]). Thus, the matter is
ripe.
Law and Analysis
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d
912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Thus, a suit is presumed to lie outside this limited
jurisdiction unless and until the party invoking federal jurisdiction establishes otherwise. Id.
Federal law authorizes the removal to federal court of “any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
“The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists.” De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Gaitor v. Peninsular &
Occidental S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1961)). To determine whether jurisdiction is
present, courts consider “the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of
removal.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)
2
(citing Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1995)). “Any
ambiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly
construed in favor of remand.” Id. (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th
Cir. 2000)).
In this case, defendants invoked this court’s original jurisdiction, via diversity, which
requires complete diversity of citizenship between the adverse parties and an amount in
controversy greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiffs do not contest that the parties
are diverse; rather, they dispute defendant’s contention that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional minimum.
Pursuant to the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, the
removal statute now specifies that
[i]f removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by
section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be
deemed to be the amount in controversy, except that-(A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy if the
initial pleading seeks-*
*
*
(ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does not permit
demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the
amount demanded . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii).
In Louisiana state court cases, plaintiffs are prohibited from alleging a monetary amount of
damages in the petition. La. Code Civ. P. Art. 893 (as amended by Acts 2004, No. 334).2 Thus,
2
Albeit, plaintiffs are required to allege when their damages are insufficient to support
federal jurisdiction. La. Code Civ. P. Art. 893A. However, courts have recognized that a party
cannot create federal jurisdiction by omission, which is just as likely the result of inadvertence,
3
the removing defendant must assert the amount in controversy in the notice of removal, which
“should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
Here, of course, plaintiffs challenge defendant’s amount in controversy allegation. In
Dart Cherokee, the Supreme Court recently explained that, “[i]n such a case, both sides submit
proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-incontroversy requirement has been satisfied.” Dart Cherokee, supra. In this case, neither side has
submitted proof regarding amount in controversy. However, because “there is a presumption
against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal
court,”3 the court must construe the equipoise against a finding of subject matter jurisdiction.
In lieu of evidence, defendant appears to rely on plaintiffs’ damages allegations to meet
its burden of proof. Prior to Owens, a removing defendant could satisfy its burden of supporting
federal jurisdiction by establishing that it was “facially apparent” from the petition that the claims
probably exceed $75,000. Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2003);
accord St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1254 (5th Cir. 1998). It is
unclear, however, whether this alternative method of proof survives Dart Cherokee. See Statin v.
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 599 Fed. Appx. 545, 546 n.1 (5th Cir.2014) (noting the potential
change wrought by Dart Cherokee); Akins v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., Civ Action No. 14-0653, 2015
WL 566678, at *2 (M.D. La. Feb. 10, 2015) (questioning whether the framework remains viable
rather than by design. See e.g., Lilly v. Big E Drilling Co., Civ Action No. 07-1099, 2007 WL
2407254 (W.D. La. Aug. 20, 2007).
3
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
4
after Dart Cherokee).
Nonetheless, even if the “facially apparent” alternative survives Dart Cherokee, the court
is not persuaded that it is satisfied in this case. As in Simon v. Wal-Mart, Inc., plaintiffs have
alleged, with little specificity, damages from less severe injuries; together with unidentified
medical expenses; no specific types of medical treatment; and no allegations of disability. See
Simon v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 193 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999); compare Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
233 F.3d 880, 882 -883 (5th Cir. 2000).4 In short, the extent and severity of plaintiff’s injuries
and damages, as of the time of removal, remain ambiguous.5
Conclusion
In sum, plaintiff’s petition does not support diversity jurisdiction on its face, nor did
removing defendant allege or aver additional facts which would support federal jurisdiction. See
4
Gerald Hodnett alleged “severe injuries” and seeks recovery for,
a)
Past, present, and future medical expenses;
b)
Past, present, and future physical pain and suffering and loss of function;
c)
Past, present, and future mental anguish and emotional distress;
d)
Past and present loss of wages and future earnings capacity;
e)
Scarring and disfigurement; and
f)
Loss of enjoyment of life.
(Petition, ¶¶ 7-8).
Defendant seems to suggest that the court should aggregate Dorris Hodnett’s claims with her
husband’s to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. Ordinarily, however, this is not permitted.
Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir.1995).
5
Citing a trio of district court decisions from jurisdictions as diverse as Florida, Georgia,
and Michigan, defendant emphasizes that it was required to file a notice of removal within 30
days, or risk losing its right to remove the matter to federal court. (Def. Opp. Memo., pgs. 3-4).
However, more recent authority by the Fifth Circuit should assuage defendant’s concerns. See
Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 400 (5th Cir.2013) (removal clock not triggered
where complaint did not contain a “specific allegation that damages are in excess of the federal
jurisdictional amount.”).
5
Simon, supra. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and remand is required. 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c).6
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand [doc. # 6] filed by plaintiffs Gerald Hodnett
and Dorris Hodnett is hereby GRANTED; by separate judgment, the court will REMAND the
case to the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 25th day of September 2015.
__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
It is conceivable that defendant may re-remove this matter to federal court if, at a later
date, it becomes “unequivocally clear and certain” that the amount in controversy does exceed
$75,000. See Capturion Network, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., 2009 WL 1515026, *8 n5 (S.D. Miss.
May 29, 2009).
6
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?