McKinney v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TONI MCKINNEY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-6538

RACHEL JACKSON ET AL. SECTION: “B”(1)

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court are plaintiff Toni McKinney’s motion to remand (Rec. Doc. 4) and

defendants Rachel Jackson and Acadia Insurance Company’s opposition (Rec. Doc. 7). For the

following reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following an automobile accident in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, Ms. McKinney sued

the driver of the other car (“Ms. Jackson”), the driver’s employer and purported car owner (“the

Foundation”), Ms. Jackson and the Foundation’s insurer (“Acadia”), and plaintiff’s own insurer

(“Allstate”). Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 5–6, 8. Specifically, plaintiff alleges Ms. Jackson caused the

vehicular collision by running a stop sign. See id. at 6 ¶6. Ms. McKinney generally alleges she

“was hurt as a result of the collision,” requesting seven damage types:

(a) Physical pain and suffering (past, present and future);

(b) Mental anguish;

(c) Loss of enjoyment of life (past, present and future);

(d) Medical Expenses (past, present and future);

(e) Lost wages/earning (past and future); and [sic]

(f) Property damage; and

(g) Other elements of damages developed during discovery and/or demonstrated

with particularity at the trial of this matter.

Id. at 6 ¶12, 7–8 ¶15. She further notes that her damages “are likely to exceed the amount required

for trial by jury.” Id. 8 ¶18. Finally, Ms. McKinney “prays for a trial by jury and for all other

general or equitable relief deemed fit.” Id. at 8 ¶19.

The tort action was timely filed in Louisiana state court. See id. at 5. Asserting 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332 diversity jurisdiction, Ms. Jackson removed the suit to federal court. Rec. Doc. 1 at 1. As

to the citizenship of defendants in an action filed by a Louisiana citizen, Ms. Jackson asserts that

complete diversity exists, as she and the Foundation are Mississippi citizens, Acadia an Iowa

citizen, and Allstate an Illinois citizen. Id. at 2–3. As to the requisite amount in controversy, Ms.

Jackson states that Ms. McKinney refused to stipulate to an amount under $75,000.00. Id. at 3.

“Accordingly,” Ms. Jackson contends, “Petitioner shows to a degree of legal certainty that the

amount in controversy for the claims of the plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of

$75,000.00 of this Court for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.”

Id. Disputing the satisfaction of the amount in controversy, Ms. McKinney timely filed this motion

to remand.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Removal Jurisdiction Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Cas.

Co., 603 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2010). Removal of a civil action to federal court is governed by

28 U.S.C. § 1441 and is proper where the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §

1441(a). “Original jurisdiction, in non-maritime claims, lies where the conditions of 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 [federal question] or 1332 [diversity] are satisfied.” Halmekangas, 603 F.3d at 292 (alteration

in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332 exists where there is complete diversity of citizenship of the parties, and where the

amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Motions to remand are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which provides that:

“[i]f at any time before the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Any ambiguities are construed

against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand.”

Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Acuna v.

Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).

“To determine whether jurisdiction is present for removal, we consider the claims in the

state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.” Id. (citing Cavallini v. State Farm Mut.

Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1995)). However, Louisiana law prohibits plaintiffs from

pleading a specific amount of monetary damages. See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 893(A)(1).

Nonetheless, in order to maintain solely state jurisdiction, Louisiana plaintiffs are required to

generally allege a damage amount below the federal threshold. Id. (“[I]f a specific amount of

damages is necessary to establish the jurisdiction of the court [or] the lack of jurisdiction of federal

courts due to insufficiency of damages, ... a general allegation that the claim exceeds or is less than

the requisite amount is required.”). Where statements in a petition allude to damages less than

$75,000.01, they are not dispositive as to the amount in controversy. See De Aguilar v. Boeing

Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1410 (5th Cir. 1995). Instead, courts understand pleadings in compliance with

Article 893 as stating an indeterminate amount of damages. See, e.g., Maze v. Protective Ins. Co.,

No. 16-15424, 2017 WL 164420, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 17, 2017).

Where an indeterminate amount of damages is alleged, the removing party “must establish

by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” See

Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (citation omitted). This can be established if it is facially apparent that

the amount of damages is likely to exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00, or by “summary

judgment type evidence” of the facts in controversy that support a finding of exceeding the

jurisdictional amount. See id. (citations omitted). In determining the amount, a court does not

prejudge the plaintiff’s likely recovery but merely makes “an estimate of the amount that will be

put at issue in the course of the litigation.” Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. of

Holders of AAMES Mortg. Inv. Tr. 20054 Mortg. Backed Notes, 37 F.4th 1053, 1057 (5th Cir.

2022) (citation omitted).

B. Motion to Remand

Whether a federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a matter regularly presents a clear

question with an obscured answer: is it more likely than not that, at the time of filing, the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00? In this Louisiana personal injury suit, Ms. McKinney properly

includes an indeterminate amount of damages in her state-court petition. Thus, in accordance with

Fifth Circuit precedent, Ms. Jackson and Acadia (collectively “removing defendants”) must prove

by preponderance of the evidence that the federal jurisdictional amount is present. As previously

noted, they do so through two means: (1) from the allegations and demands in the state-court

petition itself or (2) through the submission of summary judgment-type evidence. See Manguno,

276 F.3d at 723.

Ms. McKinney’s petition alleges injuries from the car accident are described in one,

non-specific paragraph: “Toni McKinney was hurt as a result of the collision.” Rec. Doc.

1-1 at 6 ¶12. Her requested damage types similarly present a general personal injury picture:

(a)Physical pain and suffering (past, present and future);

(b)Mental anguish;

(c)Loss of enjoyment of life (past, present and future);

(d)Medical Expenses (past, present and future);

(e)Lost wages/earning (past and future); and [sic]

(f)Property damage; and

(g) Other elements of damages developed during discovery and/or demonstrated

with particularity at the trial of this matter.

Id. at 7–8 ¶15. In opposition to the motion to remand, removing defendants note that the

“several categories of damages” in the petition make it more likely than not that the amount in

controversy for federal jurisdiction is met. Rec. Doc. 7 at 2. However, theew is no caselaw to

substantiate the contention that a general listing of damages establishes per se the jurisdictional

threshold.

Instead, removing defendants focus on what is absent in the petition: a stipulation of

recovery below $75,000.01. Ms. McKinney alleges that her damages “are likely to exceed the

amount required for trial by jury.” Id. 8 ¶18. Thus, Ms. McKinney acknowledges an amount in

controversy of at least $10,000 to assert the right to jury trial un Louisiana law. See La. Code

Civ. Proc. art. 1732. However, her petition fails to address the Louisiana Code of Civil

Procedure requirement that a general allegation be made that the action “lack[s] of jurisdiction of

federal courts due to insufficiency of damages.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 893(A)(1). This pleading

error is a factor for consideration for the amount in controversy, but “is not determinative of this

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Env’t Equip., Inc. v. N. Ins. Co. of Am., No. 11-2072, 2012

WL 2279736, at *2 (E.D. La. June 15, 2012). Removing defendants, nevertheless, key in on the

absence of any stipulation, stressing in the notice of removal and their opposition to the current

motion that Ms. McKinney has refused to stipulate. Rec. Doc. 1 at 3 (“Undersigned made a

$75,000.00 diversity amount threshold. Counsel for the plaintiff has denied to so stipulate.”);

Rec. Doc. 7 at 2 (“Counsel for the plaintiff refused to so stipulate.”).

According to removing defendants, this stipulation refusal facially establishes the amount

in controversy: “Such a refusal [to stipulate] should be sufficient to establish that the plaintiff seeks

an amount in damages equal or in excess of $75,000.00.” Rec. Doc. 7 at 2 (citing De Aguilar v.

Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995)). The Fifth Circuit in De Aguilar makes a

plaintiff’s stipulation for avoidance of federal jurisdiction necessary once the defendant

establishes the amount in controversy is more likely than not in contest: “[W]e hold that if a

defendant can show that the amount in controversy actually exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the

plaintiff must be able to show that, as a matter of law, it is certain that he will not be able to

recover more than the damages for which he has prayed in the state court complaint.” Id. at 1411;

see also id at 1412 (“Once the removing party has proven the amount in controversy is likely to

exceed the diversity threshold, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for

less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”). Therefore, Ms. McKinney’s

refusal to stipulate can be considered in an evaluation of the actual amount in controversy along

with other factors to carry removing defendants’ burden.

Removing defendants include summary judgment-type evidence to substantiate their

jurisdictional claim, namely, the accident’s “Louisiana Uniform Crash Report.” See Rec.

Doc. 7-1. Unchallenged by Ms. McKinney, the report “indicates that the injuries were of

some seriousness.” Rec. Doc. 7 at 2. We find the attached report itself provides greater detail of

the incident and its aftermath: “The driver of vehicle two was very disoriented on scene and was

unable to provide a statement as to how the crash occurred . . . . Driver two was transported to the

Slidell Memorial Hospital for treatment, via Acadian Ambulance Service.” Rec. Doc. 7-1 at 14.

Ms. McKinney’s vehicle, a 2021 Chevrolet Equinox, was also towed from the scene due to

“disabling damage.” Id. at 8. These descriptions reveal a car accident allegedly with serious

bodily and property damage, providing detail to Ms. McKinney’s evasive petition. Coupled with

Ms. McKinney’s failure to generally plead below the jurisdictional amount and her refusal to so

stipulate, we conclude it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.00.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of January, 2024

________________________________________

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE