UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JESSICA CONNER CIVIL ACTION NO. VERSUS 20-407-JWD-EWD MURPHY OIL USA, INC. d/b/a MURPHY USA, ET AL. RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is the First Motion to Remand, filed by Jessica Conner (“Plaintiff”).' For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted and this matter is remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. This case was removed by Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

.” The Court issued a Notice and Order on July 27, 2020 requiring Defendant to set forth facts and evidence to support a finding that the requisite amount in controversy was met since it was not apparent from the Petition or Notice of Removal.? On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed its Memorandum in Support of Minimum Jurisdictional Amount.* In response, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand. In the Motion to Remand, Plaintiff represents that her damages are “not sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements for diversity.”> In connection with the motion, Plaintiff filed an “Trrevocable and Binding Stipulation,” wherein she stipulates, among other things, (1) that the “total sum or value in controversy in this cause of action, including general damages, special damages, penalties and attorney’s fees, does not exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and

'R. Doc. 6. Doc. 1, p. 2. 3R. Doc. 4. +R. Doc. 5. 5 at (IL.

costs,” (2) that “[n]either Plaintiff nor her attorney will accept an amount that exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,” and (3) that “Plaintiff and her attorney renounce any portion of any judgment which may be rendered in their favor against Defendant, Murphy Oil-USA, Inc., which is in excess of $75,000.00.”6 Further, Plaintiff represents in the motion that counsel for Defendant “has been contacted regarding this Motion to Remand and attached Stipulation and

advised that she has no objection to the Stipulation and the requested action [i.e., remand] herein…”7 Considering the representations in the Motion to Remand, which establish to a legal certainty that Plaintiff will not recover more than $75,000,8 and the lack of opposition by Defendant:9 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand10 is GRANTED. The above-referenced matter is remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 25, 2020.

S JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6 R. Doc. 6-1, ¶¶ 1, 3, 4. 7 R. Doc. 6, ¶ VI. 8 See e.g., Mitchell v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 14-2766,

, at *5 (E.D. La. Dec. 30, 2015) (post- removal stipulations may be considered where the amount in controversy was ambiguous at the time of removal) (citation omitted). 9 The time provided for filing opposition memoranda under Local Civil Rule 7(f) has run, and no opposition to the Motion to Remand has been filed. 10 R. Doc. 6.