HELEN G. BERRIGAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are the memorandum of counsel directed at the issue of whether the jurisdictional minimum existed at the time of removal. See Rec. Docs. 7 & 8. Because the Court concludes that the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy did not exist at the time of removal, the Court now REMANDS the instant matter to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On August 17, 2015, plaintiff Derick Toussant filed a petition for damages in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against his former employer and defendant, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., See Rec. Doc. 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that, following an on-the-job injury, he was wrongfully terminated. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks relief under Louisiana law. See id. at 3.
On October 26, 2015, defendant removed plaintiff's action to the Court. See Rec. Doc. 1. Defendant's stated ground for removal is that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, because there is over $75,000 in controversy and the parties are diverse. See id. On November 3, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to brief whether the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy existed at the time of removal. See Rec. Doc. 5. Both plaintiff and defendant subsequently submitted briefs. See Rec. Docs. 7 & 8.
District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity between all parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction and the Court may sua sponte ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999).
The parties apparently agree that at least roughly $20,000—one year's salary for plaintiff—is actually in controversy. See Rec. Docs. 7 at 2 & 8 at 2. Though not plaintiff's burden to bear, plaintiff persuasively addresses the unlikelihood that damages will exceed $75,000 in this case. See Rec. Doc. 7 at 2. Defendant, on the other hand, presents only the vaguest argument that damages "could potentially exceed $75,000," because of plaintiff's abuse of rights claim. Rec. Doc. 8 at 2. Defendant provides no factual basis for the argument and cites only one, remarkably distinguishable case. See id.; see also Huey v. Super Fersh/Save-a-Center Inc., Civ. A. No. 07-1169, 2009 WL 3834218, 2009 WL 3834275 (E.D.La. Nov. 11, 2009). The Court concludes that defendant has not met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY BY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter, Case Number 15-5479, is REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Dear Sir:
I am enclosing herewith a certified copy of an order entered by this court on December 14, 2015 remanding the above-entitled case to your court.