Baudoin-Willem v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HALEY BAUDOIN-WILLEM CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-1272

AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER- SECTION “R” (1)

INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff Haley Baudoin-Willem’s unopposed

motion to remand.1 For the following reasons, the Court hereby grants

plaintiff’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from an automobile collision that occurred on June 10,

2021.2 On that date, plaintiff was allegedly driving eastbound on Jefferson

Highway in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, when William Peterson suddenly

merged in front of her, causing plaintiff to strike his vehicle.3 Plaintiff

allegedly suffered “severe and debilitating” personal injuries as a result of the

1 R. Doc. 4.

2 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 3.

3 Id. ¶ 4.

collision.4 Plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for damages against Peterson,

Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, USAA Casualty Insurance

Company (“USAA”), and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance

Company (“Garrison”) in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of

Jefferson.5 Plaintiff then dismissed her claims against Peterson and

Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, leaving only USAA and

Garrison as defendants.6

Defendants USAA and Garrison removed the case to this Court.7 In

their notice of removal, defendants asserted that this Court has jurisdiction

over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because there is complete

diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000

statutory threshold.8 After defendants removed the case, the Court issued

an order requiring defendants to file, within fourteen days, a list of all parties

remaining in this action and certain records from the state-court docket.9

Defendants did not comply with the order.

4 Id. ¶ 4.

5 Id. ¶ 1.

6 R. Doc. 1-1.

7 R. Doc. 1.

8 Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 7.

9 R. Doc. 3.

Plaintiff then moved to remand.10 Plaintiff contends that remand is

proper because (1) defendants failed to follow the appropriate procedure for

removal, and (2) the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.11

Defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s motion in which they do not dispute

that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, and represent that the

parties intend to file a stipulation regarding the amount in controversy.12

The Court considers plaintiff’s motion below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may generally remove a civil action filed in state court if

the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal

jurisdiction exists. See Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th

Cir. 1995). In assessing whether removal was appropriate, the Court is

guided by the principle, grounded in notions of comity and the recognition

that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, that removal statutes

should be strictly construed. See, e.g., Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas.

10 R. Doc. 4.

11 R. Doc. 4-1 at 1.

12 R. Doc. 5. As of the date of this Order and Reasons, the parties have

yet to file any such stipulation.

Ins., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002); see also St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co.

v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938) (“The intent of Congress drastically

to restrict federal jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different

states has always been rigorously enforced by the courts.”). Though the

Court must remand the case to state court if at any time before the final

judgment it appears that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court’s

jurisdiction is fixed as of the time of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Doddy v.

Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 1996).

For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must

exceed $75,000, and there must be complete diversity between plaintiffs and

defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Having a plaintiff and a defendant who are citizens

of the same state ordinarily destroys complete diversity. See McLaughlin v.

Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004).

III. DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, defendants’ decision not to oppose plaintiff’s

motion “alone provides sufficient grounds to remand.” Brown v. Heintz, No.

16-13697, 2017 WL 604034, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2017) (collecting cases);

see also Jackson v. City of New Orleans, No. 95-1340, 1995 WL 599046, at

*1 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 1995) (holding that plaintiff’s remand motion “could be

granted as unopposed”).

Remand is also proper because defendants have failed to meet their

burden of establishing that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This Court’s jurisdiction is based on

“claims in the state court complaint as it existed at the time of removal.”

Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because Louisiana law “prohibits plaintiffs from petitioning for a specific

monetary amount,” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d

720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002), plaintiff did not cite a specific dollar value in her

petition for damages. Accordingly, defendants “must establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.” Id.; see also Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864,

868 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that the Fifth Circuit has “modified the usual rule

for determining whether the amount in controversy is present” in “Louisiana

situations”). “This requirement is met if (1) it is apparent from the face of

the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or alternatively,

(2) the defendant sets forth ‘summary judgment type evidence’ of facts in

controversy that support a finding of the requirement.” Manguno, 276 F.3d

at 723 (quoting Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (1999)).

The burden then switches to the plaintiff to show “to a legal certainty that the

amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.” Grant, 309 F.3d at 869.

“Any ambiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute

should be strictly construed in favor of remand.” Manguno, 276 F.3d at 724.

Here, the amount in controversy is not “apparent from the face of the

petition.” Id. Although plaintiff alleges that she suffered “severe and

debilitating personal injuries” as a result of the collision,13 she does not

specify in her complaint the nature of those injuries or what medical

treatments, if any, she needs to address those injuries. See Simon, 193 F.3d

at 850 (concluding that it was not “‘facially apparent’ that the amount of

damages would exceed $75,000” when plaintiff generally alleged that she

suffered physical injuries and incurred unidentified medical expenses); cf.

Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (concluding

that the jurisdictional amount was apparent on the face of the complaint

when plaintiff specified in her complaint that she required an emergency

ambulance trip and a six-day hospitalization, among other things). Nor have

defendants provided any “summary judgment type evidence” demonstrating

13 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 4.

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in this case.14 The Court

thus grants plaintiff's motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion

and REMANDS this matter to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish

of Jefferson.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this__ 9th _ day of June, 2023.

bern Varner

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 R. Doc. 5 at 1.