Robinson v. Spire Hospitality, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES ROBINSON PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-414-KHJ-MTP SPIRE HOSPITALITY, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte for jurisdictional purposes. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[Clourts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”). This negligence case arises from when Plaintiff Charles Robinson “slipped and fell on water which had escaped the stall and l[olnto the floor of [his hotel] bathroom.” Compl. [1-1] at 3-4. Defendant Spire Hospitality, LLC (“Spire”) owned and operated the hotel where the accident occurred. See id. Robinson seeks damages for “[plast and future pain and suffering”; “[s]evere personal injury, including to his elbow”; “[plast and future medical billings, including surgery on his elbow”; “[mlental and emotional stress”; and “[llost wages.” Jd. at 4. Spire removed the case from Hinds County Circuit Court, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal [1] { 2. The Notice of Removal, however, does not establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

To begin, the Court cannot decide whether complete diversity exists because Spire does not identify the citizenship of AWH Management, LLC’s members. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019) (“[Tlo establish diversity jurisdiction, a party ‘must specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC.” (quotation omitted)). Further, the Court cannot determine whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. “In removal practice, when a complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). “[Blare allegations lof jurisdictional facts] have been held insufficient to invest a federal court with jurisdiction.” Jd. (quotation omitted). The face of the Complaint does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Robinson does not allege a specific amount of damages, see [1-1] at 3-5, and Spire’s Notice of Removal contains only bare allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see [1] { 12. This is not enough. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., 134 F.3d at 1254 (“Conclusional allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction.”).!

1 Spire may remove the case again should another paper or pleading establish the jurisdictional requirements. See Powell v. Target Corp., No. 3:16-CV-127, 2016 WL 4573974, at *3-4 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2016) (response to interrogatory was “other paper”); Grayson □□□ Moncla Well Serv., 844 F. Supp. 2d 789, 793 (S.D. Miss. 2011) (same for settlement demand); Ellis v. Piccadilly Rests., No. 3:11-CV-394, 2011 WL 8198686, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2011) (same for notice of default judgment).

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the case to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. SO ORDERED, this 18th day of July, 2024.

s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE