ZAINEY, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 21). Defendants oppose the motion. The motion is setfor hearing, on the briefs, without oral argument on August 21, 2002. However, counsel for plaintiff and defendants have submitted their briefs and the Court is prepared to rule.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff was injured in a two-vehicle collision in New Orleans, Louisiana on April 4, 2001. The plaintiff filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on December 3, 2001 for damages allegedly stemming from the accident. In his petition, plaintiff sought damages for "past and future physical pain suffering and discomfort; past and future mental anguish, aggravation and annoyance; disability; loss of enjoyment of life; loss of use/function of parts of body; bodily disability; impairment of psychological functioning; future lost earnings; destruction of earning capacity; and, disability from engaging in recreation." See Petition for Damages, at 4, attached as Exhibit One to defendants' Opposition to Mr. Polk's Motion to Remand. In compliance with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 893, plaintiff did not state a specific damage amount in his petition.
Defendants filed a timely notice of removal on January 16, 2002. The notice stated that all the defendants "are non-residents of the State of Louisiana" and "the amount in good faith controversy exceeds $75,000." See Notice of Removal at 1 and 3. The defendants also assert that the amount in controversy is bolstered by the fact that the "plaintiff's attorney has filed an uninsured motorist claim against Government Employees Insurance Company, and State National Insurance Company has more than $100,000 worth of insurance on their insured, G. F. Kelly Trucking, Inc., and Daniel Robinson, and this Court accordingly has original jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332." See Notice of Removal at 3. Plaintiff seeks to remand the matter to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stipulating that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Defendants oppose the remand and maintain that it is facially apparent that the plaintiff's multiple claims exceed $75,000 or, that additional evidence in the form of plaintiff's deposition and the fact that plaintiff amended his complaint to include Government Employees Insurance Company in light of the fact that the original defendant had $100,000 in coverage, supports the conclusion that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied at the time of removal. The defendant further offered the plaintiff's deposition testimony to establish that the plaintiff may need surgery and if in fact surgery is required, plaintiff reserves his right to claim lost wages.
DISCUSSION
District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity among all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994). Diversity is not questioned in this case. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Louisiana. G.F. Kelly Trucking d/b/a Kelly Trucking and Daniel Robinson are residents of Alabama. State National Insurance Company is principally domiciled in the State of Texas and Government Employees Insurance Company is located in the District of Columbia. The sole jurisdictional issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The Fifth Circuit has guided the district courts in resolving disputes concerning the amount in controversy. By law, plaintiffs in Louisiana state courts may not designate a numerical amount of a damage claim. La. Code Civ. P. art 893. In a situation where the plaintiff is precluded by state law from asserting a numerical value of a damage claim, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Luckett v. Delta Airlines, 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1993) The defendants make this showing in either of two ways: (1) by demonstrating that it is "facially apparent" that the claims are likely above $75,000, or (2) "by setting forth the facts in controversy-preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit — that support a finding of the requisite amount." Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). The Allen court also noted that once removal jurisdiction attached, a subsequent amendment of the complaint reducing the amount in controversy to less than the required amount cannot divest jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged at the time of removal. Id. at 1335. "Additionally, if it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction." Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2000); see also St. Paul Mercury Indem., 303 U.S. at 292, 58 S.Ct. 586; ANPAC v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A., 988 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1993); Allen, 63 F.3d at 1336.
Once the district court's jurisdiction is established, subsequent events that reduce the amount in controversy to less that $75,000 generally do not divest the court of diversity jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-90, 58 S.Ct. 586, L.Ed. 845 (1938).
The plaintiff in this case alleged in his original state court petition that his claims "exceed the amount requisite for a jury trial." See plaintiff's petition, ¶ XVIII and La. Code Civ. P. art 893. This amount would require damages of $50,000 or greater. The plaintiff subsequently stipulated in his Ex Parte Motion to Remand that his damages fall below the $75,000 required jurisdictional amount. The Court need not remark on plaintiff's ability to calculate his damages at an amount great enough to allow a trial by jury in state court but below the jurisdictional amount required to remain in this Court.
The De Aguilar court did note that litigants who want to avoid removal may file a binding stipulation or affidavit with their complaints. Id. at 1412. (emphasis added).
The plaintiff seeks damages for a wide variety of serious injuries and losses. He alleges that as a result of this accident he suffered and continues to suffer multiple personal, psychological and emotional injuries of a past, present and continuing nature including past and future physical pain suffering and discomfort; past and future mental anguish, aggravation and annoyance; disability; loss of enjoyment of life; loss of use/function of parts of body; bodily disability; impairment of psychological functioning; future lost earnings; destruction of earning capacity; and, disability from engaging in recreation. Plaintiff's deposition testimony indicates that he may require surgery.
The Court finds that these serious damage allegations, although somewhat generic in nature, are of such an extent as to make it "facially apparent" that his claims exceed $75,000 and a subsequent stipulation that the damages will not exceed this amount do not divest this court of jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 21) should be and is hereby DENIED.