Richard St. Pe Company, Inc. v. BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall respond to defendants propounded discovery no later than Friday, November 26, 2010; Oral argument set for November 24, 2010, is CANCELED; All other requested relief is D ENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that or on before December 10, 2010, defendants shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy which support a finding that the jurisdictional amount exists. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 11/16/10. (crt,Smith, C)

Download PDF
- P J H Richard St Pe Co Inc v. A T & T L D et al Doc. 7 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 R I C H A R D ST. PE COMPANY, INC. VERSUS A T & T LD, ET AL C I V I L ACTION 10-1466 J U D G E DOHERTY M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA O R D E R GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL A N D REQUIRING BRIEFING ON JURISDICTIONAL A M O U N T IN CONTROVERSY D e f en d a n ts filed a Motion to Compel (Rec. Doc. 5) on October 19, 2010, asking th e court to compel plaintiff to answer Requests for Admission and Interrogatories p ro p o u n d e d in state court on January 21, 2010, and BellSouth's Interrogatories and R eq u ests for Production of Documents dated April 7, 2010. These sets of discovery were p ro p o u n d e d while the action was pending in Louisiana state court, prior to removal to f e d era l court on September 22, 2010. Defendants argue that despite multiple requests and d e m a n d s , plaintiff has not responded at all to any of the propounded discovery. Opposition to the motion to compel was due by November 9, 2010. However, to d a te no opposition has been received. O n e request for admission asks plaintiff to admit his damages are less than the n e c e s s a r y amount in controversy for federal court jurisdiction and an interrogatory also re q u e sts clarification of plaintiff's damages. After a review of the pleadings, the u n d e rsig n e d has serious concerns regarding the amount in controversy and whether this 1 Dockets.Justia.com c o u rt has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. A removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the a m o u n t in controversy exceeds $75,000 by either (1) demonstrating that it is facially a p p a re n t that the claims are likely above $75,000 or (2) setting forth the specific facts in c o n tr o v e r sy that support a finding of the jurisdictional amount. Simon v. WalMart Stores, 1 9 3 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ). The jurisdictional amount is not "facially apparent" from the complaint and r e m o v in g defendants have failed to set forth sufficient specific facts to establish ju r is d ic tio n . I T IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Compel (Rec. Doc. 5 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1) P la in tif f shall respond to defendants' propounded discovery no later than F rid a y, November 26, 2010; O r a l argument set for November 24, 2010, is CANCELED; A ll other requested relief is DENIED. 2) 3) I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that or on before December 10, 2010, defendants sh a ll file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy which support a f in d in g that the jurisdictional amount exists and citing applicable case law involving s im ila r facts and which reflect verdicts in an amount of $75,000.00 or more. Supporting d o c u m e n t a tio n , such as the value of the claim at issue, and an affidavit from defense 2 c o u n se l setting forth the value, and the underlying facts, are advisable. Simon and L u c k e tt, supra, establish that a showing of jurisdictional amount is properly made by a f f id a v it. L a f aye tte , Louisiana, this 16 th day of November, 2010. 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?