Allen v. Lowes Home Centers Inc et al

Filing 8

ORDER regarding Jurisdiction: IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall submit a brief, not later than 21 days after the date of this order, in support of their contention that Mr. Green was fraudulently joined. It is Further ORDERED that the plainti ff shall then have 14 days from the submission of the defendants' brief to file a response to the plaintiff's brief. It is Further ORDERED that the defendants will then have 7 days in which to file a reply brief. It is Further ORDERED that no oral argument on this issue will be held unless requested by a party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 11/28/2011. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
JOAN ALLEN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-01813

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.
d/b/a LOWE’S AND EDWIN GREEN

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

ORDER

The defendants removed this case from a local state court, alleging that this
Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 which confers jurisdiction on
civil actions when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings to determine whether the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied.
The party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden
of establishing the court’s jurisdiction.1 Therefore, the defendants must bear that
burden.
The allegations of the plaintiff’s petition are sufficient to establish that it is
facially apparent that the amount in controversy has been satisfied, Ms. Allen having

1

St. Paul Reins. Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-1254 (5th Cir. 1998).

undergone back surgery that she alleges is causally connected to the injury described
in her complaint.
The defendants have also established that the plaintiff and defendant Lowe’s
Home Centers, Inc. are diverse in citizenship. With regard to defendant Edwin
Green, however, the defendants contend that Mr. Green’s citizenship should be
disregarded because he was fraudulently joined in order to defeat this court’s
jurisdiction over this matter. The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating
improper joinder.2 Improper joinder may be established by demonstrating either that
there was actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts or by demonstrating the
inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in
state court.3
Whether Mr. Green was fraudulently joined is a threshold matter bearing on the
court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall submit a brief, not later than 21 days
after the date of this order, in support of their contention that Mr. Green was
fraudulently joined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall then have 14 days from the
submission of the defendants’ brief to file a response to the plaintiff’s brief.
2

Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 893 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir. 1990).

3

Smallwood v. Illinois Central, 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants will then have 7 days in
which to file a reply brief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument on this issue will be held
unless requested by a party.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 28th day of November 2011.