233 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2000), 00-30386, Gebbia v Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
|Citation:||233 F.3d 880|
|Party Name:||CATHERINE GEBBIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||December 04, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant Catherine Gebbia ("Plaintiff") appeals the district court's denial of her motion to remand. Because we find no error regarding the denial of her motion, we affirm.
Plaintiff brought this action on September 23, 1998, in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court of Louisiana, alleging claims arising from her injuries suffered in one of Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s ("Defendant") stores in Hammond, Louisiana, on October 5, 1997. Plaintiff suffered her injuries when she went into the produce section of the store and slipped and fell in liquid, dirt, and produce on the floor. Plaintiff alleged in her original state court petition that she sustained injuries to her right wrist, left knee and patella, and upper and lower back. Pet. for Damages at 2, reprinted in R. Excerpts Ex. 2 at 2. Plaintiff alleged damages for medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of wages and earning capacity, and permanent disability and disfigurement. Id. at 4. Consistent with Article 893 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits the allegation of a specific amount of damages, Plaintiff did not pray for a specific amount of damages.
Defendant removed this action to the district court on October 13, 1998, pursuant to diversity jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is undisputed that the parties are completely diverse, as Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana and Defendant is a citizen of Delaware with its principle place of business in Arkansas. Defendant stated in its Notice of Removal that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement was satisfied because Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeded that amount.
The district court scheduled this action for trial on March 20, 2000, and the parties proceeded with pre-trial discovery until March 2, 2000, when Plaintiff questioned the court's diversity jurisdiction by filing a motion to remand arguing that the $75,000 amount in controversy...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP