Tedeton v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 14 Order and 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Notice of Removal filed by Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co. IT IS ORDERED, that no later than July 1, 2016, Defendant file admissible evidence to support its conten tions that the jurisdictional amount is met. Defendant may meet this requirement by filing a summary of the billing charges accompanied by an affidavit or declaration or with some other equally appropriated evidence. If Defendant fails to file the supporting evidence, the case will be remanded to the Fourth Judicial District Court. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/23/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
PATSY TEDETON
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-190
VERSUS
*
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE
COMPANY
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On February 10, 2016, the above-captioned case was removed by Defendant from the Fourth
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. For the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, the adverse parties must be
diverse in citizenship, and the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a).
On May 5, 2016, after a review of the record, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued an
order [Doc. No. 14]. She correctly stated the law that “[f]ederal courts are obliged to examine the
basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at p. 1, n.1 (citing Smith v. Texas
Children’s Hosp., 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1999)). As it was not clear from an examination of
the facts stated in the Petition as to whether the amount in controversy was met, Defendant was
ordered to file “a memorandum, together with supporting evidence, sufficient to establish that the
requisite amount was in controversy at the time of removal.” Id.
Defendant did not do so.
On May 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hayes issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
15]. As she explained, there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendant
failed to submit the requisite memorandum and proof. Therefore, she recommended that the Court
find that Defendant failed to satisfy his burden and remand the case to state court.
In response, on the following day, May 25, 2016, Defendant filed objections [Doc. No. 16]
to the Report and Recommendation. Counsel states in his memorandum that Plaintiff has serious
injuries, has a current total medical bill of $64,179.63, and continues to receive treatment. He further
states that Plaintiff’s counsel has consistently maintained that her injuries exceed the threshold
amount.
Plaintiff did not respond.
First, the Court notes that Defendant offered no explanation for its failure to comply with
Magistrate Judge Hayes’ order.
Second, even if there is good cause for the failure to comply with the original order,
Defendant still has not complied. Defendant was ordered to file a memorandum and supporting
evidence. While the Court does not doubt counsel’s credibility, the statements and arguments of
counsel are not evidence. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that, no later than July 1, 2016, Defendant file admissible evidence to
support its contentions that the jurisdictional amount is met. Defendant may meet this requirement
by filing a summary of the billing charges accompanied by an affidavit or declaration or with some
other equally appropriate evidence. If Defendant fails to file the supporting evidence, the case will
be remanded to the Fourth Judicial District Court.
2
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 23rd day of June, 2016.
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?