On June 25, 2019, Judge Lance Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana remanded a car accident case to the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans for the second time, finding the defendants still did not make a sufficient showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The case arose from a car accident on September 20, 2017 on Interstate 10 in New Orleans. The plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a Tyson Foods freight tractor. The defendants alleged the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case because the parties were residents of different states and that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.

The requirements for removal are met if (1) the face of the petition makes it apparent that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000 or (2) the defendant must bear the burden to set forth summary judgement type evidence of facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount. Once the defendant has met their burden, the plaintiff can still defeat jurisdiction by “showing to a ‘legal certainty’ that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.” Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864, 869 (5th Cir. 2002).

In deciding the plaintiff’s first motion to remand, the Court previously noted that it was not facially apparent that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The defendants, in trying to meet their burden on the second removal, used the plaintiff’s medical records to prove the potential for the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. Doctors recommended the plaintiff to receive surgery for a herniated disk, but he was also given the option for injections instead. The court found that it was unclear which, if either, treatment the plaintiff would undergo for his future treatment. The defendants failed to present evidence of the likelihood of having the surgery. The only eligible proof of expenses was the plaintiff’s previous medical expenses totaling just above $20,000, which falls far below the necessary $75,000. The court made it clear that the mere possibility the plaintiff might recover more that $75,000 is not enough to justify removal. The case is Gallin v. Tyson Foods, et. al, Docket No. 19-10070 in the federal court.