3:20-cv-00564
M.D. La.Sep 4, 2020Background
- Accident on Aug. 2, 2019: Comager (driver) and Gauthier (passenger) allege injuries after vehicle driven by Emanuel Brister (employed by Trojan Trucking, insured by Progressive) struck Comager's vehicle.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in state court (July 22, 2020) seeking general damages (past/future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment, medical expenses, lost wages).
- Progressive removed to federal court (Aug. 28, 2020) asserting complete diversity; defendant citizenship allegations show diversity appears to exist.
- Progressive relied on limited medical records it received: Gauthier ~4 cervical/lumbar bulging discs, shoulder tendinopathy/tear, ~$5,834 past medicals; Comager ~3 cervical/2 lumbar bulges, facet injections, ~$15,894 past medicals, ongoing treatment.
- Court found the Petition’s general damage categories and Progressive’s limited medical figures insufficient to show the required $75,000 amount in controversy; noted bulging-disc cases often yield less than the jurisdictional threshold and that plaintiffs’ failure to stipulate is not dispositive.
- Court sua sponte ordered Progressive to file evidence on amount in controversy by Sept. 14, 2020, and ordered Plaintiffs to either concede jurisdiction or move to remand by Sept. 24, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Plaintiffs allege general damages but did not stipulate values; they assert damages to be proven at trial | Progressive contends injuries, ongoing treatment, and lack of stipulation make it facially apparent amount exceeds $75,000 and asks court to find threshold met | Court: Not apparent; current record insufficient. Ordered Progressive to submit evidence on amount in controversy |
| Whether general categorical pleading of damages satisfies removing party's burden | Plaintiffs rely on standard pleading of categories (pain, medicals, lost wages) | Progressive relies on pleading plus limited medical records and absence of stipulation | Court: General categories alone are insufficient under the 'facially apparent' test; removing party must produce supporting evidence |
| Significance of plaintiffs' refusal to stipulate damages under $75,000 | Plaintiffs are not required to sign defendant's stipulation and absence of stipulation is not admission of value | Progressive argues refusal supports an inference that claims exceed $75,000 | Court: Failure to stipulate is a factor but not determinative and does not relieve removing party of its burden to prove amount in controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who do not meet amount-in-controversy if at least one plaintiff does)
- McDonal v. Abbott Laboratories, 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2005) (federal courts may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Clement v. Carbon, 153 So.3d 460 (La. App. 2014) (general damages award of $30,000 for bulging disc at C5-6)
- Mixter v. Wilson, 54 So.3d 1164 (La. App. 2010) (general damages around $30,000 where MRI showed ruptured and bulging discs treated with injections)
- Holford v. Allstate Ins. Co., 935 So.2d 758 (La. App. 2006) (affirming $25,000 general damages for chronic back pain with mild bulging discs)