Jones v. Environmental Oil Recovery Inc
3:21-cv-02722
W.D. La.Jan 21, 2022Background
- EORI removed the state-court personal-injury action to federal court on diversity grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1332), asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- Jones (plaintiff) objected in the Rule 26(f) report and the court sua sponte questioned whether the jurisdictional amount was met at removal.
- The court ordered EORI to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; EORI filed a memorandum and evidence; Jones did not file a response.
- EORI relied on the petition, discovery responses, a deposition (describing a permanent limp, ongoing pain, and a lasting scar), and a photograph of the leg injury.
- The court found the petition and evidence did not make it facially apparent nor otherwise prove by a preponderance that the claims exceeded $75,000 at removal.
- Magistrate Judge McClusky recommended remand to state court for failure of the removing defendant to meet its jurisdictional burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy at time of removal (> $75,000)? | Jones disputed amount-in-controversy; argued insufficient. | EORI asserted permanent scar, limp, inability to bear weight, lost wages, and submitted deposition/photo. | Court: EORI did not prove by preponderance that amount exceeded $75,000; remand recommended. |
| Reliance on “facially apparent” method after Dart Cherokee? | Jones argued petition does not facially show > $75,000. | EORI relied on petition plus discovery to show facially apparent or supportable amount. | Court: Not persuaded the petition or record made the amount facially apparent here. |
| Burden and standard of proof for removal | Jones emphasized presumption against federal jurisdiction; uncertainty of damages. | EORI relied on Dart Cherokee and its removal notice. | Court: Burden rests on removing defendant to prove jurisdiction by preponderance; EORI failed. |
| Plaintiff’s discovery response refusing to limit damages | Jones answered “unknown” regarding whether damages exceed $75,000. | EORI treated that as refusal to stipulate damages below threshold. | Court: Failure/refusal to stipulate is insufficient alone to satisfy defendant’s burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (removing defendant bears burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction).
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (presumption against federal jurisdiction; removal statutes strictly construed).
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (when amount in controversy is contested, parties may submit evidence and court decides by preponderance).
- Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999) (general, non-specific injury allegations may not facially establish requisite amount).
- Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2002) (two methods to satisfy preponderance: facially apparent or setting forth facts in controversy).
- Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771 (5th Cir. 2003) (amount-in-controversy proof standards).
- St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250 (5th Cir. 1998) (standards for establishing amount in controversy).
- Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing presumption against federal jurisdiction).