Cannata v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co

Filing 11

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER: This matter was removed from state court by defendant State Farm fire & Casualty Co. As the removing party, State Farm has the burden of proving this Court has jurisdiction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED tha t, on or before 12/03/2015, the removing party shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. These facts should be supported with summary-judgment-type evidence. The plaintiff will then be allowed seven days to respond to State Farm's memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 11/16/2015. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Cannata

Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-02434

versus

Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER
This matter was removed from state court by defendant State Farm fire &
Casualty Company (“State Farm”).

State Farm contends 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. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. The person seeking to
invoke federal court jurisdiction has the burden of proof to demonstrate at the outset
of the litigation that the federal court has authority to hear the case. St. Paul
Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998). Therefore,
the removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists.
Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).

In a case like this one, in which the plaintiff does not seek recovery of a
determinate amount in his 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, 134 F.3d at 1253. To satisfy that
burden, the party must either (1) demonstrate that it is facially apparent 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.
In this case, the plaintiff did not seek a determinate amount of damages in her
state court petition. 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.
As the removing party, State Farm has the burden of proving that this Court has
jurisdiction over this matter. While State Farm has pleaded sufficient facts to
establish that the parties are diverse in citizenship, it has not pleaded sufficient facts
to establish the amount in controversy. State Farm merely states that plaintiff alleges
the value of his claim is “much greater than the adjuster’s estimate of only
$41,333.23." State Farm also includes the potential value of the plaintiffs’ claims for
statutory penalties in its calculation of the amount in controversy. But the mere fact
2

that the “plaintiff seeks penalties and attorney’s fees is... not determinative of the
amount in controversy.” Schaeffer v. Allstate, 2008 WL 4058867 (E.D. La. 2008).
Finally, State Farm pleads that State Farm’s counsel has been “verbally informed by
Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff is alleging the value of his claims exceeds $75,000.”
This statement, which points to no supporting evidence, is mere speculation of what
the amount in controversy could be, not what it was at the time of removal. The
jurisprudence is clear that “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter
jurisdiction upon a federal court. Thus, the consent of the parties is irrelevant....” See
Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694,
702 (1982).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before December 3, 2015, the
removing party shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a
finding that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. These
facts should be supported with summary-judgment-type evidence. The plaintiff will
then be allowed seven days to respond to State Farm’s memorandum.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 16th day of November, 2015.

3