Opinion ID: 71316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amount In Controversy Allegations

Text: The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred by finding that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. First, the district court concluded that each of the plaintiffs’ claims satisfied the jurisdictional 5 Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 No. 09-40993 requirement. Second, in the alternative, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ claims could be aggregated to satisfy the $75,000 minimum. We conclude that each of the plaintiffs’ claims satisfies the amount in controversy requirement; accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether the plaintiffs’ claims may be aggregated to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. To establish federal jurisdiction, the removing party must show that the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy is determined at the time of removal. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). If a defendant establishes “by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than the jurisdictional amount,” a plaintiff may defeat removal only by establishing to a legal certainty that his or her recovery will not exceed the statutory threshold. In re: 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378, 387 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This court determines whether the defendants have satisfied the amount in controversy requirement by first asking whether it is “facially apparent” from the state court petition that the claims exceed $75,000 in value. See Allen v. R.H. Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1336 & n.16 (5th Cir. 1995). If it is not facially apparent that the monetary requirement is satisfied, the defendants may establish federal jurisdiction by alleging facts—either in the petition for removal or by affidavit—that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas, Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2003). In this case, the defendants did not introduce additional facts to show that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied; rather, they asserted that it was facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied. 6 Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 No. 09-40993 We conclude that it is facially apparent that each plaintiff’s wrongful death claim satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.4 In the complaint, the plaintiffs, the children of Mr. Menendez, seek damages for their personal injuries, including their mental pain and suffering, sustained as a result of Mr. Menendez’s death. Further, plaintiff Adelfa Mancillas de Menendez, the wife of Mr. Menendez, seeks damages for loss of companionship and consortium. These allegations, taken on their face, establish that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. See De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 57 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that, based on the face of the complaint, the plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful death exceeded the $50,000 amount in controversy threshold); see also Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that, on the face of a complaint for personal injury damages, the plaintiff’s claims satisfied the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement); Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883 (holding that it was facially apparent from the plaintiff’s complaint that the amount in controversy was satisfied where the plaintiff alleged damages for mental anguish, suffering, loss of wages, and medical expenses). Because the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied for each of the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims, we need not reach whether the plaintiffs’ survival action satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. The district court could properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the survival action 4 In so holding, we do not announce a per se rule that a wrongful death claim will always satisfy the amount in controversy requirement; rather, we conclude that the complaint in this case satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. 7 Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 No. 09-40993 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 5 Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.