“The intent of Congress drastically to restrict federal jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states has always been rigorously enforced by the courts.”
How later courts described this case
- “The intent of Congress drastically to restrict federal jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states has always been rigorously enforced by the courts.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GNAWLINS, LLC CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-5666
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE SECTION “R” (4)
COMPANY
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff and defendant’s joint motion to remand.1
For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in Louisiana state court on August 28, 2023.2
The state court petition alleges that defendant is liable on an insurance policy
for property damage caused by Hurricane Ida.3 In the petition, plaintiff
“stipulates its cause of action does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.”4 Defendant removed the matter to this Court on September 29,
1 R. Doc. 9.
2 R. Doc. 1-1.
3 Id.
4 Id. ¶ 42.
2023, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.5 In the notice of removal,
defendant asserts that on February 1, 2023, “[p]laintiff supplied [defendant]
with a Statement of Loss for this claim in the amount of $131,463.42.”6
On October 2, 2023, plaintiff filed its first motion to remand, asserting
that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, as evidenced by the
stipulation in the state court petition.7 On October 18, 2023, plaintiff and
defendant jointly filed another motion to remand on the same basis.8
The Court considers the 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
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 Id. ¶ 10.
7 R. Doc. 3.
8 R. Doc. 9.
should be strictly construed. See, e.g., Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas.
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). Under Fifth Circuit law, if a plaintiff pleads
damages less than the jurisdictional amount, this figure will generally control
and bar removal. See Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335. If a defendant can show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, then removal is proper. See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193
F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999); Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335. But if the plaintiffs
establish with legal certainty that the claims are for less than $75,000, then
they can defeat removal. See De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1411-
12 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Love, 71 F.4th 348,
355 n.4 (5th Cir. 2023) (affirming same).
III. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, defendant’s decision not to oppose plaintiff’s
remand 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”).
Further, it is not facially apparent from the original petition that the
jurisdictional amount is satisfied. The original petition includes a stipulation
that the “cause of action does not exceed $75,000.”9 Defendants originally
presented a Statement of Loss filed with defendants on February 1, 2023, in
which plaintiff asserts the total value of the claim on the insurance policy is
$131,463.42.10 Plaintiff states that the amount in controversy in this action
is lower because of “prior payments made.”11 See Nelsen v. Garrison Prop.
and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2023 WL 5844754, at *4 (E.D. La. Sep. 11, 2023)
9 R. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 42.
10 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 10; R. Doc. 1-3.
11 R. Doc. 3-1.
(holding that tendered payments may reduce amount in controversy).
Because it is defendant’s burden “to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” Manguno v.
Prudential Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002), and
defendant does not challenge plaintiff's allegations but joins in the motion to
remand, the Court finds that the jurisdictional amount is not satisfied, and
the case must be remanded.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff and defendant’s
joint motion to remand.” Plaintiffs original motion to remand3 is DENIED
as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _20th _ day of October, 2023.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 R. Doc. 9.
13 R. Doc. 3.