Lopez v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING 3 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (td)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
MARIA LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:18-CV-338-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Maria Lopez’s (“Lopez”) Motion to Remand, (Dkt. 3), and the
response filed by Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”), (Dkt. 4). Having considered
the parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will grant Lopez’s motion.
I. DISCUSSION
Lopez filed this action in Hays County Court at Law No. 2 in October 18, 2017. (Orig. Pet.,
Dkt. 1-3). Lopez alleges that she was injured in a San Marcos Lowe’s while shopping and seeks to
hold Lowe’s liable for violations of Texas law. (Id. at 2). Lopez alleges that she “seeks monetary
relief of less than $75,000.00.” (Id. at 3).
Lowe’s removed the case to this Court on April 25, 2018, on the basis of this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. (Not. Removal, Dkt. 1). According to Lowe’s, Lopez produced a document in
discovery on March 28, 2018, that revealed the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. (Not.
Removal, Dkt. 1, at 2). 1 The document at issue is an estimate for surgical procedures costing over
$200,000. (Estimate, Dkt. 1-9).

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to a district court of the United States that has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions that are between citizens of
different states and involve an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction “requires complete diversity— if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any
defendant, then diversity jurisdiction does not exist.” Flagg v. Stryker Corp., 819 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir. 2016). Lopez does

1

Lopez avers that the estimate was made in June 2015, months before she was injured at
Lowe’s in November 2015. (Mot. Remand, Dkt. 3, at 1). Lowe’s says that the estimate is nonetheless
relevant because Lopez produced it in discovery and is seeking past and future medical expenses.
(Resp. Mot. Remand, Dkt. 4, at 2). Because “it would appear that Plaintiff is alleging . . . aggravation
of a prior injury,” Lowe’s speculates that the estimate is probative of Lopez’s damages. (Id.).
Resolution of this issue turns on the parties’ burden of proof. The party seeking removal
“bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was
proper.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). To determine
the amount in controversy, “the plaintiff’s claim remains presumptively correct unless the defendant
can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than the
jurisdictional amount. . . . The defendant must produce evidence that establishes that the actual
amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.” De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir.
1995). Only if the defendant meets its burden must it then “appear to a legal certainty that the claim
is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” Id. (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem.
Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)). The removal statute must “be strictly construed, and
any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.” Gasch v. Hartford
Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281–82 (5th Cir. 2007).
Here, the Court finds that Lowe’s has not met its burden to prove that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. The surgical estimate pertains to an injury suffered prior to the
incident at issue in this action. Lowe’s can only speculate about its relevance to Lopez’s damages. At
best it creates a doubt about whether Lopez’s damages exceed $75,000, but any doubts “must be
resolved in favor of remand.” Gasch, 491 F.3d at 281–82.

not dispute the diversity of the parties. (See Mot. Remand, Dkt. 3). The only issue before the Court is whether the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Lopez’s Motion for Remand, (Dkt. 3), is
GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to County Court at Law No. 2 of Hays County, Texas.
The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.
SIGNED on September 19, 2018.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3