Nicholson et al v. Northland Insurance Co et al
Filing
8
JURISDICTIONAL Amount Review Ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 4/3/2012. (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
JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW
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. (Rec. Doc. 1). 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.
The undersigned reviewed the pleadings and found that the plaintiffs are
diverse in citizenship from the defendants but also found that it was not facially
apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. (Rec.
Doc. 6 at 2). Because the party invoking federal court jurisdiction has the burden of
proving, at the outset of the litigation, that the federal court has authority to hear the
case,1 the removing defendants in this case must bear the burden of showing that
1
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998).
federal jurisdiction exists.2 Therefore, the undersigned ordered the defendants to file
a memorandum setting forth specific facts supporting a finding that the amount in
controversy is sufficient and to support those facts with summary-judgment-type
evidence. (Rec. Doc. 6 at 4).
The defendants complied with the order. (Rec. Doc. 7). Despite having an
opportunity to do so, the plaintiffs did not respond withing the allotted time.
In their memorandum, the defendants established that plaintiff Angela
Nicholson has undergone an anterior cervical discectomy with decompression of
nerve roots and interbody fusion as well as carpal tunnel surgery, both of which she
claims are related to the accident on which this lawsuit is based. The defendants also
established that plaintiff Angela Nicholson has incurred medical bills exceeding
$90,000, which she contends are related to the subject accident. Accordingly, the
undersigned finds that, with regard to plaintiff Angela Nicholson, the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
The defendants further established that, with regard to plaintiff Kirk Johnson,
the amount in controversy is far less than the $75,000 necessary for jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Mr. Johnson has been treated on a few occasions since the
2
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).
-2-
accident and has incurred medical bills of approximately $800.00. Therefore, the
undersigned finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met with regard
to plaintiff Kirk Johnson.
However, the United States Supreme Court has held that only one plaintiff's
claims must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement in order to confer original
jurisdiction over the claims of all plaintiffs in the case. In Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005), the Court held that “where the other
elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action
satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, [ 28 U.S.C.] § 1367 does authorize
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs . . . even if those claims
are for less than the jurisdictional amount. . . .”
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the parties to this lawsuit are diverse
in citizenship, the defendants have satisfied their burdening of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold with regard to plaintiff Angela Nicholson, and the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted by plaintiff Kirk Johnson.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 3rd day of April 2012.
-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?