Reyna v. Sims Cattle and Trucking, LLC et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand filed by Little Moses Reyna. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/27/2025) (awc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
LITTLE MOSES REYNA,
Plaintiff,
v.
2:25-CV-009-Z-BR
SIMS CATTLE AND TRUCKING, LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (“Motion”) (ECF No. 9), filed January
22, 2025. Having considered the Motion, the relevant law, the Notice of Removal, and the briefing,
the Court DENIES the Motion.
BACKGROUND
On
December
10, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a negligence
case against Defendants
in Potter
County, Texas, state court. ECF No. 1] at 11. Defendants received service on December 20, 2024.
Id. at 1~2. The case arose from a vehicle collision on Interstate 40 in Potter County, Texas. /d. at
12. Plaintiff was driving eastbound when Defendants’ vehicle collided with the driver side of
Plaintiff's vehicle. /d. Plaintiff sued the driver and the trucking company for negligence. Jd. at 12—
14.
In his
state
complaint,
Plaintiff claimed
he
incurred
$17,958.18
in
medical
expenses.
Additionally, Plaintiff claimed damages for sustained and future medical expenses, earnings
losses, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, physical impairment, physical
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and damages from aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
Id. at 14-15.
Defendants timely filed a notice of removal on January 13, 2025, under 28 U.S.C. Sections
1441(b) and 1446(b). ECF No. 1. Defendants alleged diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this
Court’s original jurisdiction upon removal. Jd. at 2. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and Defendants
are a citizen of Nebraska and a Nebraska corporation. Jd. Additionally, Defendants alleged that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as Plaintiff's petition evidenced. Jd.
Plaintiff timely filed this Motion to Remand. ECF No. 9; 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). He does not
contest the parties’ citizenship but claims that his original state petition did not allege an amount
in controversy above $75,000. /d. at 6-8. He argues Defendants never believed that the amount in
controversy could exceed $75,000 despite alleging such because they offered him a lower
settlement amount. /d. at 7-8. Further, Plaintiff notes he never put any specific amounts in his state
petition beyond the “amount of medical expenses [he] incurred as a result of treatment of [his]
injuries.” Jd. at 8. That amount is only $17,958.18. /d. at 5. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks remand
for lack of jurisdiction.
LEGAL STANDARD
Defendants can remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). Congress gives federal
district courts original jurisdiction over matters if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
there is complete diversity between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The party that removes the
case bears the burden of establishing that the federal court has jurisdiction. Shearer v. Sw. Serv.
Life Ins. Co., 516 F.3d 276, 278 (Sth Cir. 2008). “[T]he basis upon which jurisdiction depends
must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by mere
inference.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (Sth Cir. 1988) (citing 71.
Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1983)). Jurisdictional facts
for removal are assessed at the time of removal. Macon v. Blomquist, No. 4:06-CV-128, 2006 WL
8438467, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2006).
The amount in controversy is the “value of the object of the litigation” and not other
incurred expenses. Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (Sth Cir. 1983); see also Garcia v.
Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 (Sth Cir. 2003). Typically, the amount the plaintiff
claims in their original petition controls the amount in controversy if made in good faith. See De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408-09 (Sth Cir. 1995), superseded by statute on other
grounds, Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 37 F.4th 1053, 1059 (Sth Cir. 2022); St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938). But plaintiffs filing suit in Texas
state courts cannot allege an exact dollar amount for their damages. Beasley v. Liberty Ins. Corp.,
No. 3:10-CV-631, 2010 WL 2697151, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2010) (citing TEx. R. Civ. P. 47(b));
see also De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1410. Instead, Texas state plaintiffs may only state that the damages
sought are within the jurisdictional limits of the state court.
When the state court petition does not set forth specific damages, the removing defendant
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii), (c)(2)(B); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (Sth Cir. 1993).
Essentially, a court must determine “whether it is more likely than not that the amount of the claim
will exceed” $75,000. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 n.13 (Sth
Cir. 1998). This can be assessed in two different ways: First, if “it is apparent from the face of the
petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins.
Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (Sth Cir. 2002). Or second, if “the defendant sets forth ‘summary judgment
type evidence’ of facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount.” Jd.; Garcia,
351 F.3d at 638-39; see also Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 163 n.6 (Sth Cir. 1992)
(“{T]he federal court may either: (1) look to the petition for removal, (2) make an independent
appraisal of the amount of the claim, or suggest that the defendant is free to do so, or (3) remand
the action.”). A plaintiff may conclusively avoid removal if he files a binding stipulation with his
state complaint limiting his recovery to $75,000. See Richard v. Time Warner Cable Media, Inc.,
960 F. Supp. 2d 659, 662 (N.D. Tex. 2013).
ANALYSIS
Here, it is apparent from the face of Plaintiff's state petition that his claims are likely to
exceed $75,000. In Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., the Fifth Circuit held a district court correctly
denied a motion to remand when the plaintiff alleged damages for property, travel expenses, an
emergency ambulance trip, a six-day stay in the hospital, pain and suffering, humiliation, and
temporary inability to do housework.
171 F.3d 295, 298 (Sth Cir. 1999). Similarly, in Gebbia v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Fifth Circuit held a district court correctly denied remand when the
plaintiff alleged in her original petition that she had injuries on her right wrist, left knee and patella,
and upper and lower back along with medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish and
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages and earning capacity, and disfigurement. 233 F.3d
880, 883-84 (5th Cir. 2000).
Reading the face of the state petition, the Plaintiff claims damages quite akin to the
plaintiff's in Gebbia. First, he claims $17,958.18 of medical damages already incurred. ECF No.
1 at 12. Even more, Plaintiff lists a long list of additional damages sought. He seeks past and future
medical expenses, past and future lost earnings and earning capacity, past and future physical pain,
past and future mental anguish and emotional distress, past and future physical impairment, past
and future physical disfigurement, and past and future loss of his enjoyment of life. Jd. at 14-15.
These alleged damages
need only to likely exceed
about $57,000
because
Plaintiff already
enumerated nearly $18,000 in incurred medical expenses. But many of these alleged damages,
much less all combined, could likely exceed $57,000. For example, if Plaintiff was off work for a
year, he may incur sufficient damages for jurisdiction. Or his future loss of enjoyment of life could
reach the needed amount. In total, because Plaintiff does seek damages for a long list of expensive
losses, the Court determines the face of his state petition easily sets forth claims worth more than
$75,000.
Plaintiff argues that because Defendants offered to settle the case for less than the expenses
Plaintiff already incurred then they must believe the case worth less than $75,000. ECF No. 9 at
5, 8. However,
in the Fifth Circuit,
settlement offers are not considered
when
determining
jurisdictional amount. See Pollet v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 01-31309, 2002 WL
1939917, at
*1 n.5 (Sth Cir. July 18, 2002) (settlement offers “do not necessarily or even persuasively suggest
that [the] claims amount to no more than $75,000 in controversy”); Kliebert v. Upjohn Co., 915
F.2d 142 (Sth Cir. 1990), vacated for reh’g en banc, 923 F.2d 47 (Sth Cir. 1991), appeal dismissed,
947 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1991) (explaining settlement offers are normally “less than the damages the
plaintiff expects to receive if victorious at trial” so they “do[] not restrict... [the] claim”).
Accordingly, the Court affords no jurisdictional weight to Defendants’ presuit offer to settle the
case for a low amount. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
January 27 2025
Lae
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?