“jurisdictional facts must be judged as of the time the complaint is filed”
How later courts described this case
- “jurisdictional facts must be judged as of the time the complaint is filed”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDDIE BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 20-1792
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE SECTION M (3)
COMPANY
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiff Eddie Brown,1 to which
defendant The Phoenix Insurance Company (“Phoenix”) responds in opposition.2 Having
considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the
motion to remand, finding that Phoenix has met its burden of establishing the requisite amount in
controversy.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves a personal injury. Brown filed this action against Phoenix in the 23rd
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, seeking to recover on his
uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance policy for injuries he allegedly sustained in an
automobile accident.3 Specifically, Brown alleges that on April 8, 2019, he was driving on LA
3125 in St. James Parish when he stopped for a red light at the intersection with LA 642.4
Thaddus Wilson, who was driving a truck behind Brown, failed to stop and rear-ended Brown’s
vehicle.5 Brown alleges that he sustained damages for past, present, and future pain, suffering,
disability, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, and loss of income and
1 R. Doc. 7.
2 R. Doc. 9.
3 R. Doc. 1-3 at 3.
4 Id.
5 Id.
earning potential.6 On June 19, 2020, Phoenix received Brown’s medical records which show
that he has undergone two lumbar steroid injections to treat several herniated and bulging discs.7
On June 23, 2020, Phoenix removed this action to this Court alleging diversity subject-
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.8 Phoenix alleges that the parties are completely
diverse as it is a citizen of Connecticut, and Brown is a citizen of Louisiana.9 Phoenix also
alleges that there is more than $75,000 in controversy as evidenced by the injuries documented in
Brown’s medical records.10 Finally, Phoenix points out that Brown has not stipulated that his
damages do not exceed the jurisdictional threshold.11
II. PENDING MOTION
Brown filed the instant motion to remand arguing that Phoenix did not meet its burden of
demonstrating that the requisite amount in controversy was satisfied as of the date of removal
because Phoenix refers to the categories of damages listed in the complaint to say that Brown
could recover more than $75,000, but refused to admit in response to Brown’s discovery requests
that Brown was entitled to recover more than $75,000.12
In opposition, Phoenix argues that it does not rely on the categories of damages listed in
the complaint to assess the amount in controversy, but rather relies upon Brown’s medical
records as demonstrating that his injuries, if proved to be related to the subject accident, would
likely result in a recovery of an amount greater than $75,000.13 Phoenix explains that, although
it did not admit that it owes Brown damages in excess of $75,000, it acknowledges that the
amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000.14
6 Id. at 4.
7 R. Doc. 1 at 2-4.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id. at 4.
10 Id. at 3-7.
11 Id. at 7-9.
12 R. Doc. 7-1 at 4-5.
13 R. Doc. 9 at 2-3.
14 Id. at 4-7.
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
A defendant may remove from state court to the proper United States district court “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). The federal district courts have original subject-matter
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship when the cause of action is between “citizens of
different States” and the amount in controversy exceeds the “sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction must exist at the time
of removal to federal court, based on the facts and allegations contained in the complaint. St.
Paul Reins. Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (“jurisdictional facts must be
judged as of the time the complaint is filed”). “Any ambiguities are construed against removal
and in favor of remand to state court[,]” and “[t]he party seeking to remove bears the burden of
showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.” Mumfrey v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
Because plaintiffs in Louisiana state courts may not plead a specific amount of damages,
the Fifth Circuit has “established a clear analytical framework for resolving disputes concerning
the amount in controversy for actions removed from Louisiana state courts pursuant to §
1332(a)(1).” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 882-83 (5th Cir. 2000). In these
cases, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
jurisdictional amount is satisfied: (1) by demonstrating that it is facially apparent from the
petition that the claim likely exceeds $75,000, or (2) by setting forth facts, preferably in the
removal petition or sometimes by affidavit, that support a finding of the requisite amount. Id.
In this case, Phoenix met its burden of demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy
threshold is satisfied. In the removal petition, Phoenix refers to the severity of the injuries
alleged by Brown, which show several disc herniations and bulges in his cervical and lumbar
spine for which he has received chiropractic treatments for neck and back pain and undergone
two lumbar steroid injections.15 It is reasonable to conclude the medical care associated with
such injuries could cost more than $75,000. Thus, Phoenix has met its burden of establishing the
requisite amount in controversy.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Brown’s motion to remand (R. Doc. 7) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of August, 2020.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 R. Docs. 1 at 3-4; 1-3 at 8-19.