Tedeton v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co

Filing 19

RULING re 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge re 1 Notice of Removal filed by Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/29/16. (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

RULING
On February 10, 2016, the above-captioned case was removed by Defendant Progressive
Paloverde Company (“Progressive”) 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] requiring Progressive to file “a memorandum, together with supporting
evidence, sufficient to establish that the requisite amount was in controversy at the time of removal.”
Defendant did not do so.
On May 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hayes issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
15]. As there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendant failed to submit
the requisite memorandum and proof, she recommended that the Court find that Progressive failed
to satisfy its burden and remand the case to state court.
The following day, May 25, 2016, Progressive filed objections [Doc. No. 16] to the Report
and Recommendation. In the memorandum, Progressive’s counsel stated that Plaintiff Patsy Tedeton

(“Tedeton”) has serious injuries, has a current total medical bill of $64,179.63, and continues to
receive treatment. He further stated that Tedeton’s counsel has consistently maintained that her
injuries exceed the threshold amount.
Tedeton did not respond.
On June 23, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum Order [Doc. No. 17], first noting that
Progressive offered no explanation for its failure to comply with Magistrate Judge Hayes’ order. The
Court then found that Progressive had still failed to comply with the original order to file both a
memorandum and supporting evidence. Therefore, the Court ordered Progressive to file admissible
evidence to support its contentions that the jurisdictional amount is met no later than July 1, 2016,
or the case would be remanded to the Fourth Judicial District Court.
On June 28, 2016, Progressive provided the supporting evidence in the form of affidavits
from both its own counsel and counsel for Tedeton. Having reviewed the evidence which supports
Progressive’s statements in its objections, the Court finds that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Hayes, finds that removal was proper, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this case. The case remains pending in this Court, and a scheduling order will issue in due
course.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 29th day of June, 2016.

2