1
Wehavesubject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), which provides“[t]hedistrictcourts shall have original jurisdiction ofanycivilactioninwhichthematterincontroversy exceeds thesumorvalueof$5,000,000,exclusiveofinterestandcosts,andis aclassactioninwhich...anymemberofaclassofplaintiffsisacitizenofaStatedifferentfromany defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs’ suit satisfies the elements of § 1332(d)becausethesuitisaclassaction,theamountincontroversyexceeds$5,000,000,andatleastonememberoftheclass of plaintiffs is diverse from at least one defendant.
SeeFrazier v.Pioneer Americas LLC
, 455 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2006).Thoughplaintiffs’complaintdoesnotseekrecoveryofaspecificamount,thelargeclassofplaintiffs,“residentsofand/orpropertyownersinthestateofMississippiwhosufferedlossandharmasaresultofHurricane Katrina,” and the extent of damages sought, includingpersonalinjuryandpropertydamageresultingfromHurricane Katrina, makes it “faciallyapparentthatatleast$5millionisincontroversy.”
Frazier
,455F.3dat545;
seealsoAllen v.R&H Oil & GasCo.
,63F.3d1326,1335(5thCir.1995)(holdingthatwhenacomplaintallegesnospecificamount of damages, the amount in controversy requirement may be met “if it isfacially apparent that the claims are likely above [the requisite amount]”).
2
The district court did not issue a written opinion in this case but rather offered itsruling from the bench. The district court'sreasoningisrecordedin the hearing transcripts.The district court began its analysis of thepoliticalquestiondoctrinebystating “thattheproblem[inthiscase]isoneinwhichthiscourtissimplyill-equippedorunequippedwiththepowerthatithastoaddresstheseissues.”Describing this suit as a “debate” about globalwarming, the district court further reasoned:[I]tisadebatewhichsimply has no place in the court, until such time asCongressenactslegislation which sets appropriate standards by which thiscourtcanmeasure conduct . . . and develops standards bywhich...juriescanadjudicatefactsandapplythelaw....Underthecircumstances,I thinkthat
2usefultothem. The plaintiffs’ putative class action asserts claims forcompensatoryandpunitivedamagesbasedonMississippicommon-lawactionsofpublicandprivatenuisance,trespass,negligence,unjustenrichment,fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy.The plaintiffs invoked thedistrictcourt’ssubject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
1
Theplaintiffsdonotassertanyfederal or public law actions and do not seekinjunctive relief.Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that theplaintiffslackstandingtoasserttheirclaims and that their claims presentnonjusticiablepoliticalquestions.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotionanddismissedtheclaims.
2
The plaintiffs timely appealed. For the reasons discussed
Leave a Comment