Bacharach v. FW Woolworth Company
| Decision Date | 03 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8987. |
| Citation | 212 F. Supp. 83 |
| Parties | Mrs. Estelle BACHARACH, wife of Eugene A. Chretien v. F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY and the Travelers Insurance Company. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Frederick P. Heisler, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
Charles W. Lane, III, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, La., for defendant.
This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. Estelle Bacharach, wife of Eugene A. Chretien, demanding damages in the sum of $125,000 allegedly resulting from false arrest, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and libel and slander. The incident out of which this suit arose occurred in a store owned and operated by respondent, F. W. Woolworth Company, in Gretna, Louisiana. The plaintiff alleges that on or about August 16, 1958, she was falsely accused by Mr. Seago, the manager of the store, of having attempted to steal some merchandise for which she did not intend to pay. She further alleges that she was detained and not permitted to leave the store until she had "disgorged" the contents of her purse on a counter in full view of "all of the customers in the store". She alleges that this incident consumed some 35 or 40 minutes, and attracted a "crowd of between thirty and forty people", causing her extreme humiliation and embarrassment. She demanded the sum of $25,000 for false arrest; $25,000 for false imprisonment; $25,000 for false accusation; and $50,000 for humiliation and embarrassment.
Respondents admitted that the incident did occur, but contend that they had probable cause to suspect the plaintiff and thus were justified under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 15:84.5, et seq. in questioning the plaintiff. They further allege that the incident was handled discreetly, and that the entire incident did not consume but a very few moments, and went practically unnoticed by other customers.
A motion was filed by respondents, prior to trial, to dismiss on the grounds that the amount in controversy did not exceed the required jurisdictional amount of $10,000. This motion was, at that time, denied. The case then came on for trial, before a jury, on November 30, 1962, and after hearing all of the plaintiff's evidence, the Court, on its own motion, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdictional amount.
Ordinarily the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls insofar as jurisdictional amount is concerned if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the required jurisdictional amount to justify a dismissal. Harris v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 734; Payne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 63; Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 367 U.S. 348, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890. But, if after hearing the proofs, the Court is satisfied to a legal certainty that the plaintiff was never entitled to recover the minimum jurisdictional amount, the suit should be dismissed. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 780.
The plaintiff's proofs established, to a legal certainty, the following facts:
1. On August 16, 1958, Mr. Seago, the Woolworth store manager, suggested to the plaintiff that she might have some merchandise in her purse for which she had not paid.
2. Plaintiff denied this to Mr. Seago, and then, voluntarily, and without any demand from Mr. Seago, emptied the contents of her purse onto a counter.
3. She did not have any merchandise therein for which she had not paid.
4. Mr. Seago did not in any way forceably detain the plaintiff, and never physically touched her in any way.
5. Mr. Seago was very polite and mannerly during this incident and then, after finding that he was mistaken, he politely and profusely apologized.
6. The entire incident could not have taken over three to five minutes at the very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...v. Central Laundry Co. (1923) 154 La. 1003, 98 So. 558; Baggett v. Richardson (5th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 863, 865; Bacharach v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (D.La.1963) 212 F.Supp. 83, 85.) Washington. "No citation of authority is required for the principle that Washington does not allow punitive dama......
-
Knieriemen v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc.
...this position is that a plaintiff should recover only that which will fairly and reasonably compensate him (see Bacharach v. F. W. Woolworth Co., D.C., 212 F.Supp. 83, 85). The conclusion is evident that, plaintiff being a Louisiana domiciliary, that state has an interest in seeing that he ......
-
Commercial U. Ins. Co. v. Upjohn Co.
...rule likewise has been recognized frequently by Erie courts. Baggett v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 863 (5th Cir., 1973); Bacharach v. F. W. Woolworth, 212 F.Supp. 83 (E.D.La., 1963). Counsel for plaintiff vigorously asserts that Louisiana's rejection of punitive damages is unconscionable, particu......
-
Sansone v. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp.
...for damages exceeding the jurisdictional amount of $10,000.00 was not made in good faith." 273 F.2d 72. And in Bacharach v. F. W. Woolworth Co., D.C., 212 F.Supp. 83 (1963) the plaintiff demanded the sum of $25,000.00 for false arrest, $25,000.00 for false imprisonment, $25,000.00 for false......