Simon et al v. Erie Insurance Co et al
ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION ON JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that or on before September 3, 2010, defendants shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy, which support a findingthat the jurisdictional amount exists and citing applicable case law involving similar facts andwhich reflect verdicts in an amount of $75,000.00 or more.Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 8/20/10. (crt,Jordan, P)
- P J H Simon et al v. Erie Insurance Co et al
Do c. 20
U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION M A R K A. SIMON, ET AL V ER SU S E R I E INSURANCE CO., ET AL C I V I L ACTION NO. 10-338 J U D G E MELANCON M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA
O R D E R REQUIRING SUBMISSION ON JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT T h is case was removed from state district court based on defendants' allegation that th is court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Defendants' allegation as to the a m o u n t in controversy is unsupported by specific facts, as defendants merely allege p la in tif f s' counsel represented plaintiff Mark Simon is a surgical candidate. A removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by either (1) demonstrating that it is facially apparent that th e claims are likely above $75,000 or (2) setting forth the specific facts in controversy that s u p p o rt a finding of the jurisdictional amount. Simon v. WalMart Stores, 193 F.3d 848 (5 th C ir. 1999); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5 th Cir. 1999). In accordance with state law,1 plaintiff has not specified the numerical value of his d a m a g e claims, and the jurisdictional amount is not otherwise "facially apparent" from the c o m p l a in t . Furthermore, defendant has failed to set forth sufficient specific facts to establish ju r is d ic tio n . I T IS THEREFORE ORDERED that or on before September 3, 2010, defendants
La. C.C. P. art. 893.
s h a ll file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy, which support a finding th a t the jurisdictional amount exists and citing applicable case law involving similar facts and w h ic h reflect verdicts in an amount of $75,000.00 or more. Supporting documentation, such a s the value of the claim at issue, and an affidavit from defense counsel setting forth the v a lu e , and the underlying facts, are advisable.2 Simon and Luckett, supra, establish that a sh o w in g of jurisdictional amount is properly made by affidavit. S ig n e d this 20 th day of August, at Lafayette, Louisiana.
Relevant jurisdictional facts which should have been included in the Notice of Removal include the following: (1) plaintiff's wage basis during employment; (2) an itemization of plaintiff's damages, including a description of the nature and severity of plaintiff's physical or emotional injuries; (3) dollar amount of medicals which plaintiff will probably incur in the future based upon any current medical diagnosis; (4) lost wages incurred to date; (5) lost wages which plaintiff will probably incur in the future based upon the current medical diagnosis; (6) the amount of property damages; (7) the basis for any claim for attorney's fees, and the amount thereof; and (8) citations to case law involving similar facts which reflect verdicts in the amount of $75,000.00 or more.
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?