Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): has been specifically pled in the complaint, the defendant may still overcome a motion for remand by showing through a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory requisite. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir.1993). Removal “cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations.” Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335). As the underlying complaint in this case does not request a specific amount of damages, that pleading must be further examined to determine if it is otherwise “facially apparent” that the requisite amount in controversy has been met. This analysis focuses on the nature of the damages alleged; See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 851 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). But see Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing loss of consortium claims (B) holding that damages comprising an injured shoulder bruises abrasions unidentified medical expenses and a loss of consortium did not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement (C) holding that loss of consortium damages are not recoverable when the nonderivative claim did not result in physical injury (D) recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium (E) holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
Output (English): holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse