Darby v. USA Truck, Inc.
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: USA Truck has failed to meet its burden and establish that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action and remands it to the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/29/2011) (tln)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEPHEN DARBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLENN DERICK WALTERS, and
USA TRUCK, INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1744-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 21, 2011, Defendant USA Truck, Inc. (“USA Truck”) removed this action to federal
court from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contending that diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs. The court, for the reasons set forth herein, sua sponte remands this action to
the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
I.
Background
On June 9, 2011, Stephen Darby (“Darby” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Glenn
Derick Walters (“Walters”) and USA Truck (collectively, “Defendants”). Darby sues as a result of
a collision between his vehicle and one driven by Walters. According to Plaintiff’s Original Petition
(“the Petition”), Walters, while traveling east on LBJ Freeway in Dallas County, turned too sharply
and struck a vehicle, knocking it into Plaintiff’s vehicle. Walters was driving a vehicle owned by
USA Truck. Darby contends that Defendants were negligent in several ways and that he suffered
physical injuries as a result of their negligence. Specifically, the injuries for which Plaintiff seeks
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1
damages are past and future physical pain and mental anguish; past and future medical expenses;
lost wages; and loss of earning capacity.
II.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Standard
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or over civil cases in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which diversity of citizenship
exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a claim. See Home
Builders Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). Absent jurisdiction
conferred by statute or the Constitution, they lack the power to adjudicate claims and must dismiss
an action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Id.; Stockman v. Federal Election Comm’n, 138
F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1994)). A federal court has an independent duty, at any level of the proceedings, to determine
whether it properly has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. See Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil
Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their
own initiative even at the highest level.”); McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir.
2005) (“federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte”).
For diversity purposes, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount sought on the
face of the plaintiff’s pleadings, so long as the plaintiff’s claim is made in good faith. St. Paul
Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47
F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 865 (1995).
Removal is thus proper if it is
“facially apparent” from the complaint that the claim or claims asserted exceed the jurisdictional
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2
amount. Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 70 F.3d 26 (5th
Cir. 1995). In a removal case, when 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 [$75,000] jurisdictional amount.” St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253. “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 of the claim will exceed [the jurisdictional amount].” De Aguilar, 47 F.3d
at 1412 (emphasis in original). The test to be used by the district court is “whether it is more likely
than not that the amount of the claim will exceed [the jurisdictional amount].” Allen, 63 F.3d at
1336. As the Fifth Circuit has stated, “[t]he district court must first examine the complaint to
determine whether it is ‘facially apparent’ that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. If it is
not thus apparent, the court may rely on ‘summary judgment-type’ evidence to ascertain the amount
in controversy.” St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253 (footnotes omitted). If a defendant fails
to establish the requisite jurisdictional amount, the court must remand the case to state court. If a
defendant establishes that the jurisdictional amount has been met, remand is appropriate only if a
plaintiff can establish that it is “legally certain that his recovery will not exceed” the jurisdictional
threshold. In re 1994 Exxon Chemical Fire, 558 F.3d 378, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2009).
Any doubts as to the propriety of the removal should be construed strictly in favor of remand.
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). “The burden
of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to invoke it.”
St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253. Accordingly, if a case is removed to federal court, the
defendant has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction; if a case is initially filed in
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3
federal court, the burden rests with the plaintiff to establish that the case "arises under" federal law,
or that diversity exists and that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
III.
Discussion
With respect to contending that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, USA Truck
states the following:
Plaintiff alleges in his Petition that he sustained serious injuries,
including ‘aggravation of the body.’ Plaintiff also alleges that he has
suffered physical pain and mental anguish in the past and, in all
reasonable probability, will suffer in the future. Plaintiff also alleges
that he has incurred medical expenses in the past and will likely
suffer medical expenses in the future. Finally, Plaintiff also alleges
he has suffered lost wages and a loss of earning capacity. Based
upon the severity of the injuries and anticipated future care alleged
by Plaintiff, it is facially apparent that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00 excluding interest and costs.
Notice of Removal ¶ 4. The court disagrees with USA Truck’s conclusory statement that is “facially
apparent” from the Petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.
The question that the court must decide is whether the total claim for damages “is more
likely than not” to exceed $75,000. Allen, 63 F.3d at 1336. The court cannot say that the amount
of damages is likely to exceed $75,000. From what the court can ascertain, Plaintiff has alleged
nothing more than “soft tissue” injuries. Nothing in the Petition states the amount of medical
expenses that he had incurred at the time his suit was filed; nothing indicates that he suffered any
broken or fractured bones; nothing indicates that he has undergone any surgery for his alleged
injuries or that surgery is likely to occur; nothing indicates that there is any disfigurement or
disability to Plaintiff; and nothing indicates the amount of time he has been off work or the amount
of wages he has lost at the time of filing his lawsuit or will lose in the future. Further, there is no
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4
allegation that Defendants were reckless or grossly negligent and corresponding request for
exemplary or punitive damages. Nothing has been presented to the court as a point of reference for
it to even make a reasonable inference that the threshold amount has been exceeded. For example,
if the pleadings indicated the amount of medicals that Plaintiff had incurred or the amount of lost
wages at the time of his suit, this would be a starting point from which the court could make some
reasonable inferences about damages. Likewise, if the Petition had stated that Plaintiff had
undergone some type of surgery, the court could make some reasonable inferences and commonsense conclusions, but, as previously stated, this type of information is lacking.
As stated previously, this action originated in state court. When the suit was thus filed, the
Petition states that it “is governed by discovery control plan 2 under Rule 190.2 of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.” Pl.’s Org. Pet. 1. Rule 190.2 governs cases involving $50,000 or less. From
the filing of the initial suit, it appears that Plaintiff valued his claims at substantially less than the
$75,000 threshold. The court believes that Plaintiff’s classification of the case in his state court
pleading is quite illustrative as to the amount in controversy.
It is possible that Plaintiff seeks more than $75,000, but given the paucity of any specific
allegations regarding the amount of damages and in light of Plaintiff’s classification of the amount
in the Petition, USA Truck has not shown that Plaintiff seeks an amount greater than $75,000.
Plaintiff’s statement that he “suffered bodily injuries and/or aggravation of the body” does nothing
to assist the court. Pl.’s Orig. Pet. 2. The jurisdictional threshold may not be met by the use of
fancy or descriptive buzzwords when there are no underlying allegations to support the amount in
controversy, or when the record provides no specific insight as to the amount of damages Plaintiff
seeks. If this were the standard, virtually every case in which diversity existed would be removable
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 5
to federal court. At this juncture, a finding that the jurisdictional amount has been met would be
sheer speculation, requiring the court to make a quantum leap of logic and to wade into a briar patch
of guesswork. What USA Truck put before the court by way of conclusory statements and improper
inferences is simply too slender of a reed to establish that the amount in controversy likely exceeds
$75,000.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, USA Truck has failed to meet its burden and establish that the
amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to hear this action and remands it to the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas
County, Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The clerk of the court shall effect the remand in
accordance with the usual procedure.
It is so ordered this 29th day of July, 2011.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 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?