Broussard v. Biomedical Enterprises Inc

Filing 7

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER: This matter was removed from state court by defendant Biomedical Enterprises Inc, based on the contention that this Court has jurisdiction over this action because the parties are diverse in citizenship and t he amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. The undersigned finds that the parties are diverse in citizenship. Whether this court has jurisdiction over this action is a threshold matter that cannot be resolved on t he face of the pleadings filed to date. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before 4/5/2013, the removing defendant shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy which support a finding that the jurisdictional amount exists. Plaintiff will be allowed 10 days to reply to defendants arguments. Compliance Deadline set for 4/5/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 3/18/2013. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
RUTH BROUSSARD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-2884

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

BIOMEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER
This matter was removed from state court by defendant Biomedical Enterprises,
Inc., based on the contention 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. Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, 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. The person seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction has the
burden of proof of demonstrating, at the outset of the litigation, that the federal court
has authority to hear the case.1 Therefore, a removing party bears the burden of
showing that federal jurisdiction exists.2

1

2

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

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).

Defendant contends that the parties are diverse in citizenship. In her petition,
the plaintiff stated that she is a resident and domiciliary of Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana. [Rec. Doc. 1-4] She also alleged that the defendant is a foreign corporation
with a principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. In its removal notice,
Biomedical confirmed that it is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in San Antonio, Texas. [Rec. Doc. 1, para. 8]. Accordingly, the undersigned
finds that the parties are diverse in citizenship.
The undersigned is unable, however, to determine whether the jurisdictional
threshold has been satisfied with regard to the amount in controversy. The plaintiff
has averred that she has suffered “serious and permanent disabling injuries which she
believes to be permanent, requiring future surgery. [Rec. Doc. 1-4, para. 7] She
requests a trial by jury, asserting at most that her claims exceed the $50,000 threshold
for trial by jury in Louisiana state court3. [Rec. Doc. 1-4, para. 9] In a case like this
one, in which the plaintiff does not seek recovery of a determinate amount in her
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. St.
Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253(5th Cir. 1998). To
satisfy the burden, the party must either (1) demonstrate that it is facially apparent
3

La. C.C.P. art. 1732(1).

-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. Id at 1253. Even
when a plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, “a court can determine
that removal was proper if it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above” the
jurisdictional amount. Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335(5th Cir.
1995). In removal cases in which the jurisdictional amount is not “facially apparent,”
the court may require the removing party to submit “summary-judgment-type
evidence, relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Allen v.
R&H Oil & Gas Co, 63 F.3d 1326, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995)(emphasis added). Relevant
jurisdictional facts which should be included in the response to this Order include the
following: (1) a description of the nature and severity of plaintiff’s injuries; (2)
plaintiff’s diagnosis, including whether surgery was recommended at the time of
removal; (3) whether the plaintiff underwent surgery by the time of removal, and the
nature thereof; (4) duration of medical treatment; (5) dollar amount of medicals
incurred at the time of removal; (6) time of removal estimate of the dollar amount of
medicals which plaintiff will probably incur in the future based upon the medical
diagnosis; (7) lost wages incurred at time of removal; (8) lost wages which plaintiff
will probably incur in the future based upon the medical diagnosis; and (9) citations

-3-

to case law involving similar facts which reflect verdicts in the amount of $75,000 or
more. These facts should be presented as summary-judgment-type evidence.
Whether this court has jurisdiction over this action is a threshold matter that
cannot be resolved on the face of the pleadings filed to date. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before April 5, 2013, the removing
defendant shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts in controversy which
support a finding that the jurisdictional amount exists. Supporting documentation
and/or affidavits are advisable. A copy of the memorandum shall be provided to the
undersigned and opposing counsel. Plaintiff will be allowed ten days to reply to
defendants’ arguments.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 18th day of March, 2013.

________________________________
Patrick J. Hanna
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-