Archie v. St. John et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND re 13 Notice (Other) filed by Alexander Archie, 12 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Schneider National Bulk Carriers, Inc. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 07/18/2012 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALEXANDER ARCHIE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:12CV141-LG-JMR

JOHN ST. JOHN and SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC.

DEFENDANTS

consolidated with
KATRINA BLAND

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:12CV142-LG-JMR

JOHN ST. JOHN and SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO REMAND
BEFORE THE COURT are the Brief Regarding Remand [13] filed by
Alexander Archie and the Brief Regarding Remand [12] filed by Katrina Bland.
The Court has construed these pleadings as Motions to Remand. Archie and Bland
argue that the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction has not
been satisfied in this case. Upon reviewing the submissions of the parties and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the Motions to Remand should be denied,
because it appears more likely than not that each of the plaintiffs’ claims exceeds
$75,000.
FACTS
Archie and Bland filed separate Complaints against John St. John and
Schneider National Bulk Carriers, Inc., alleging that they suffered injuries in an

automobile accident caused by John, an employee of Schneider. The plaintiffs
assert that Schneider may have violated the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, which entitles them to compensatory and punitive damages. The
plaintiffs each request the following damages: past, present, and future lost wages
and loss of wage-earning capacity; past, present, and future pain and suffering;
past, present, and future medical expenses; loss of consortium; punitive damages;
and past, present, and future mental anguish. Neither plaintiff specified the
amount of damages sought, but in subsequent Requests for Admissions, Archie
appeared to claim medical bills of $9735.08, and Bland appeared to claim medical
bills totaling $7693.00. (Def.’s Brief, Ex. A, ECF No. 12-1; Def.’s Brief, Ex. B, ECF
No. 12-2). Schneider removed the case to this Court, and the Court granted its
Motion to Consolidate the two cases.
United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, who was formerly
assigned to Bland’s case, ordered the parties to provide briefs regarding the amount
in controversy. Although Bland and Archie never filed a formal motion to remand,
they advocated for remand in separate briefs filed in response to Judge Walker’s
Order.
DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1332 confers federal diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and the civil action
is between citizens of different states. Archie and Bland are residents of
Mississippi. John is a resident of Pennsylvania, and Schneider is a Louisiana
-2-

corporation that has its principal place of business in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Thus,
the only issue before the Court is whether the amount in controversy is satisfied.
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the
amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Hartford Ins. Grp. v.
Lou-Con, Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing St. Paul Reins. Co., Ltd. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1252 (5th Cir. 1998)). The jurisdictional facts supporting
removal must be judged at the time of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). When the complaint does not specify the dollar
amount in controversy, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co.,
11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993). There are two ways in which the defendant can
satisfy this burden. First, the defendant may show that it is facially apparent from
the complaint that the plaintiff’s claims are likely to exceed $75,000. Garcia v.
Koch Oil Co. of Tex., 351 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 2003). If the amount in controversy
is not facially apparent, the defendant “may support federal jurisdiction by setting
forth the facts – [either] in the removal petition [or] by affidavit – that support a
finding of the requisite amount.” Garcia, 351 F.3d at 639 (quoting Allen v. R&H Oil
& Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995)).
In their separate Briefs, both Archie and Bland state, “Defendants [sic]
Notice of Removal contains liquidated damages in the amount of $41,792.64 which
is far from the required $75,000 jurisdictional minimum and its estimates for the

-3-

unliquidated damages is too speculative to sustain its burden of proving that the
amount in controversy will exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court.” (Archie’s
Brief at 2, ECF No. 13; Bland’s Brief at 2, ECF No. 12). The Court has not located
any reference to the sum $41,792.64 in Schneider’s Notice of Removal. The
plaintiffs’ reference to liquidated damages also causes confusion, since this case
concerns a car accident and liquidated damages are typically contractual in nature.
As a result, it is unclear what portion of the plaintiffs’ damages are represented by
this figure exceeding $41,000.1 Nevertheless, the Court assumes that the plaintiffs
are referring to fixed damages that they have already incurred, such as lost wages
and medical bills, when they refer to liquidated damages. When the plaintiffs’
claims for loss of wage-earning capacity, future lost wages, future medical bills,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, and punitive damages are considered in
conjunction with their past lost wages and medical bills exceeding $41,000, the
Court must conclude that it is more likely than not that each of the plaintiffs’
claims exceeds $75,000.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ Motions to
Remand should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Brief
Regarding Remand [13] filed by Alexander Archie and the Brief Regarding Remand

1

The plaintiffs’ Briefs were filed in separate lawsuits; thus, it appears that
each plaintiff is separately alleging “liquidated” damages exceeding $41,000.
-4-

[12] filed by Katrina Bland, which have been construed as Motions to Remand, are
DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of July, 2012.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-