Lejeune v. Bereket et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Defendants will be allowed until June 6, 2018 to file an amended notice of removal and attempt to set forth specific facts that they believe satisfy their burden with respect to the amount in controversy. After the Defendant s have had this opportunity, the court will again review the record and determine whether they have met their burden or if the case must be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 5/17/2018. (crt,Keller, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
ERIK LEJEUNE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-cv-0578

VERSUS

JUDGE FOOTE

MENGESHA BEREKET, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Erik LeJeune (“Plaintiff”) filed suit in state court against three defendants for
personal injury and damages allegedly suffered in a traffic accident. Defendants removed
the case based on an assertion of diversity jurisdiction, which puts the burden on them to
allege facts that demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. The allegations with respect to citizenship appear to be
adequate, but there is room for doubt as to whether Defendants satisfied their burden with
respect to the amount in controversy.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was driving a Freightliner truck on the
interstate when another Freightliner truck ahead of him broke down and stopped in a lane.
Plaintiff violently struck the rear of the disabled truck. His petition does not pray for a
particular amount of damages, but it does describe some injuries such as cervicalgia, neck
pain, and back pain. He also sets forth the fairly standard category of damages such as pain
and suffering, medical bills of an unspecified amount, and the like.
Defendants, in their notice of removal, do not set forth any additional facts regarding
the amount in controversy. They offer only a conclusory assertion that the amount exceeds

$75,000, and they point out that Plaintiff’s petition does not allege that the amount falls
below $75,000, which Plaintiff could have alleged in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 893.
Notice of Removal, ¶ 10.
This court has stated that the mere lack of an Article 893 allegation by a plaintiff is
not enough to meet a removing defendant’s burden on the amount in controversy. Most
Louisiana federal courts agree that the lack of such an allegation does not establish the
amount in controversy, but the omission is entitled to “some consideration” in the inquiry.
Davis v. LeBlanc, 2017 WL 4399275 (W.D. La. 2017).
Some defendants will point to the various categories of damages sought by a
plaintiff, but this court has noted that virtually every personal injury petition filed in state
and city courts allege similar categories of damages. That does not make them all potential
federal cases. Davis, citing Wilson v. Hochheim Prairie Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 508520
(W.D. La. 2014).
Defendants will be allowed until June 6, 2018 to file an amended notice of removal
and attempt to set forth specific facts that they believe satisfy their burden with respect to
the amount in controversy. Specific facts about the type of injuries suffered and the nature,
duration, and expense of medical care are always helpful. Pre-suit settlement demands are
also relevant. After the Defendants have had this opportunity, the court will again review

Page 2 of 3

the record and determine whether they have met their burden or if the case must be
remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 17th day of May 2018.

  The court recently remanded a car accident case that involved similar facts. Contario v. Ball,
2017 WL 3015812 (W.D. La. 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3014488
(W.D. 2017).
1

Page 3 of 3