Hoskins et al v. Point Home Security Inc
Filing
8
REMAND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that this matter shall be remanded to the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Mary, State of Louisiana, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This Order shall be STAYED for 14 days from the date of issuance. Any appeal to the District Judge must be filed within 14 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 8/4/2014. (crt,Alexander, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
MARCELLE HOSKINS and
ANTHONY HOSKINS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-02191
VERSUS
JUDGE DOHERTY
POINT HOME SECURITY, INC.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
REMAND ORDER
The defendant, Point Home Security, Inc., removed this action from state court,
alleging that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties are diverse
in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. (Rec.
Doc. 1 at 2). The undersigned reviewed the pleadings, found that the parties to this
action are diverse in citizenship (Rec. Doc. 5 at 1), but also found that it was not
facially apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
(Rec. Doc. 5 at 2). The undersigned ordered Point Home to provide additional facts
regarding the amount in controversy. (Rec. Doc. 5 at 3). Point Home complied with
the briefing order and submitted a responsive memorandum. (Rec. Doc. 7). The
plaintiff was also given an opportunity to address the amount in controversy (Rec.
Doc. 5 at 3), but failed to do so.
Having reviewed the additional information submitted by Point Home, the
undersigned now finds that Point Home did not prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the
power authorized by the Constitution and by statute.1 Accordingly, federal courts
have subject-matter jurisdiction only over civil actions presenting a federal question2
and those in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest
and costs and the parties are citizens of different states.3 The party invoking subjectmatter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the court’s
jurisdiction.4 Therefore, when an action is removed from state court, as this one was,
the removing party bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists.5 In
this case, Point Home must bear that burden.
1
Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380, 388 (5th Cir. 2010); Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and
Cas. Co., 603 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010).
2
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).
5
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).
-2-
When, as in this case, the complaint does not state a specific amount of
damages, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.6 This burden can be
satisfied either by demonstrating that the amount in controversy is facially apparent
from the plaintiff’s pleadings or by setting forth the facts in controversy, with
summary-judgment-type evidence, that support a finding of the requisite amount.7
As noted previously, the undersigned already determined that the amount in
controversy is not apparent from the pleadings; consequently, Point Home was
required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement was met. “The preponderance burden forces the defendant to do more
than point to a state law that might allow the plaintiff to recover more than what is
pled. The defendant must produce evidence that establishes that the actual amount
in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional amount].”8 Any doubts as to the propriety
of removal should be construed strictly in favor of remand.9
6
Simon v. Wal–Mart Stores, 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999); Allen v. R & H Oil &
Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
7
Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999); Allen v. R & H Oil
& Gas Co., 63 F.3d at 1335.
8
De Aguilar v. Boeing, 47 F.3d at 1412 (emphasis in original).
9
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d at 723.
-3-
Once a court has concluded that the amount in controversy is not facially
apparent, the removing party must present facts, supported by summary-judgmenttype evidence, proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an amount exceeding
$75,000 is in controversy.10 Point Home presented no such evidence, admitting
instead that it has obtained no details from the plaintiffs regarding their claimed
damages. Furthermore, Point Home compared the plaintiffs’ claims only to the
damages award in one similar case. However, the cited case, Young v. First National
Bank of Shreveport, 34,214 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/22/01), 794 So.2d 128, writ denied,
2001-C-2641 (La. 01/04/02), writ denied, 2001-C-2762 (La. 03/22/02), does not state
that the plaintiffs were awarded special damages, held that the award of one
plaintiff’s general damages was reversed, and held that the other plaintiff’s general
damages award was reduced to $75,000. It appears, therefore, that the total amount
awarded in the cited case was $75,000. Consequently, Point Home did not identify
a single case in which similar allegations resulted in a damages award exceeding
$75,000.
In a similar situation, another court in this circuit said:
10
Luckett v. Delta Airlines, 171 F.3d at 298; Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d at
1335.
-4-
[The defendant] has not produced any competent evidence
. . . substantiating its contention that the amount in
controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs. Instead, it has relied solely upon the
allegations concerning plaintiff's injuries/damages that are
contained in the petition. . . which the undersigned has
already determined are insufficient to establish the amount
in controversy. As such, [the defendant] has failed to carry
its burden of proof upon removal.11
The undersigned finds that the defendant in this case has similarly failed to carry its
burden of proof.
For these reasons, the undersigned finds that this Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.” Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter shall be remanded to the 16th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of St. Mary, State of Louisiana, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
This Order shall be STAYED for fourteen days from the date of issuance. Any
appeal to the District Judge must be filed within fourteen days from the date of this
Order. If an appeal is taken to the District Judge, the Order shall remain stayed until
11
Sanchez v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., No. 10-208-BAJ-M2, 2011 WL 900295, at *3 (M.D.
La. Feb. 18, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-208-BAJ-CN, 2011 WL 902345
(M.D. La. Mar. 14, 2011).
-5-
the appeal is decided. If no timely appeal is filed, the clerk shall remand the action
forthwith.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 4th day of August 2014.
____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-6-
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?