Nicholson et al v. Northland Insurance Co et al

Filing 6

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 3/15/2012. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
ANGELA BIRCHARD NICHOLSON
and KIRK KENNEDY JOHNSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-00345

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

NORTHLAND INSURANCE CO.,
ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

This matter was removed from state court by defendants William H. Martin and
Northland Insurance Company, with the consent of defendant USAA-Casualty
Insurance Company. The defendants contend that this Court has jurisdiction over this
action because the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions in
which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs and
the parties are citizens of different states.1 The person seeking to invoke federal court
jurisdiction has the burden of proof of demonstrating, at the outset of the litigation,

1

28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

that the federal court has authority to hear the case.2 Therefore, the removing party
bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists.3
The defendants contend that the parties are diverse in citizenship. In their
petition, the plaintiffs allege that they are Louisiana citizens. In the removal notice,
the defendants state that Northland is a corporation that was organized under the laws
of Minnesota and has its principal place of business in Minnesota; that USAA is a
corporation that was organized under the laws of Texas and has its principal place of
business in Texas; and that Mr. Martin is a Texas citizen. Accordingly, the
undersigned finds that the plaintiffs are diverse in citizenship from the defendants.
The undersigned is unable, however, to determine whether the jurisdictional
threshold has been satisfied with regard to the amount in controversy. In a case like
this one, in which the plaintiff does not seek recovery of a determinate amount in its
petition, the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.4 To
satisfy that burden, the party must either (1) demonstrate that it is facially apparent

2

St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998).

3

Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002);
De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 865 (1995).
4

St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253.

-2-

that the claims are likely above $75,000 or (2) set forth the specific facts in
controversy that support a finding of the jurisdictional amount.5
In this case, the plaintiff did not seek a determinate amount of damages in its
state court petition and did not request trial by jury. The undersigned also concludes
that the jurisdictional amount is not otherwise “facially apparent” from the complaint
because the facts alleged are insufficient for the undersigned to determine whether
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. In particular, the
undersigned notes that the true nature and severity of the plaintiffs’ injuries cannot
be determined from the face of the petition, the injuries allegedly sustained by the two
plaintiffs cannot be distinguished, and no amount of medical expenses has been
alleged. Furthermore, the undersigned notes that “plaintiffs who join together in a
lawsuit generally cannot aggregate their damages to meet the jurisdictional minimum.
However, if one plaintiff alone satisfies the jurisdictional minimum, then federal
courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of co-plaintiffs who fail
to satisfy the jurisdictional amount.”6

5

St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253.

6

Earl v. Myers, No. 10-1885, 2010 WL 4875656, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 23, 2010),
citing 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a) and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549
(2005).

-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the
date of this order, the removing parties shall file a memorandum setting forth specific
facts that support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum, supporting those facts with summary-judgment-type evidence. The
plaintiff will then be allowed seven days to respond to the defendants’ memorandum.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 15th day of March 2012.

-4-