Jones v. Unknown Employees of Kerrville Bus Line ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 12, 2008
    No. 08-30018                     Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
    EDDIE JAMES JONES
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES of Kerrville Bus Line; CUSA KBC, LLC, doing
    business as Kerrville Bus Co
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:07-CV-526
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Eddie James Jones appeals, pro se, the summary-judgment dismissal of
    his in forma pauperis action for, inter alia, breach of contract. (Jones moves for
    the appointment of counsel; CUSA KBC d/b/a Kerrville Bus Company (CUSA),
    to strike statements from Jones’ motion. Jones’ motion is DENIED; CUSA’s is
    DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.)
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-30018
    An automobile in which Jones was traveling malfunctioned near
    Mansfield, Louisiana, while transporting Jones and fellow passengers between
    Texarkana, Arkansas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Local charitable groups
    purchased bus tickets to help Jones and the others return to Texarkana. The
    bus never arrived to take Jones to Texarkana on the evening of 14 March 2006.
    Returning to the local charities, Jones was provided food and lodging. The next
    day, Jones and his traveling companions returned to Texarkana.
    In this pro se action, Jones alleged he was abandoned by the bus company
    and exposed to the elements. He sought $1 million for breach-of-contract and
    emotional-distress damages, and related health-care expenses.
    A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Rodriguez v. ConAgra
    Grocery Products Co., 
    436 F.3d 468
    , 473 (5th Cir. 2006). Jones claims diversity
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    . Such jurisdiction exists, however, only
    where, inter alia, “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
    exclusive of interest and costs”. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a). The party claiming federal
    jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. E.g., Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
    
    243 F.3d 912
    , 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether Jones met the amount-in-controversy requirement,
    a federal court looks to the pleadings and summary-judgment evidence. See St.
    Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab. Co., 
    303 U.S. 283
    , 288-89 (1938).
    [I]f, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal
    certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed or if,
    from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the
    plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, . . . the suit will
    be dismissed.
    Id at 289. Accordingly, the district court looked to the pleadings and summary-
    judgment evidence and found Jones could not recover an amount sufficient to
    establish jurisdiction.
    2
    No. 08-30018
    Jones alleges three types of damages: costs for food, lodging, medications,
    and bus tickets; medical expenses resulting from the delay to his travel; and
    mental anguish.
    Pleadings and summary-judgment evidence demonstrate charitable
    organizations paid for Jones’ food, lodging, and bus tickets; he does not claim to
    have repaid those organizations. Therefore, Jones could not have suffered any
    economic damages for these items. Jones claims he paid for medication (“asprin
    and pain releivers” [sic]) on the night of his stay in Mansfield. We agree with
    the district court that costs for such over-the-counter medications are nominal.
    Jones claims his health condition was aggravated by being away from
    prescription medications for several days and being subjected to the elements
    while waiting for the bus to arrive. Summary-judgment evidence from Jones
    included medical bills totaling $4,967 and nursing-home bills totaling $44,440.
    These claims lack the good faith basis needed to fulfill the amount-in-
    controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.§ 1332. We agree with the district court
    that nothing in the pleadings or summary-judgment evidence suggest these bills
    are related to any injury or illness incurred as a result of Jones’ travel delay in
    Mansfield.
    Jones claims he suffered mental anguish because the bus failed to pick
    him up on 14 March 2006 in Mansfield. Jones does not allege he suffered any
    direct physical injury. Pleadings and summary-judgment evidence demonstrate
    food and shelter were made available to Jones, and that he could not have been
    exposed to the elements for more than a few hours because the arrival time on
    the hotel receipt for the night of 14 March was 8:09 p.m. Finally, there is no
    suggestion in the summary-judgment evidence that Jones feared for his life or
    safety during his wait for the bus.
    Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law.
    Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 
    518 U.S. 415
    , 426-27 (1996). In most
    3
    No. 08-30018
    circumstances, plaintiffs claiming mental anguish in Louisiana must prove they
    suffered physical injury. Moresi v. State Dep’t of Wildlife & Fisheries, 
    567 So.2d 1081
    , 1095-96 (La. 1990). There is no suggestion in the pleadings or summary-
    judgment evidence that Jones suffered any physical injury as a result of the bus
    not picking him up when expected.
    Deviations from this general rule have all required “the especial likelihood
    of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances,
    which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious”. 
    Id. at 1096
    . The
    evidence does not invite deviation from the general rule. We agree with the
    district court that Jones has not adequately alleged a mental-anguish claim.
    In sum, it is obvious from the pleadings and summary-judgment evidence,
    after reviewing each category of damages, that Jones fails to satisfy the amount-
    in-controversy requirement.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-30018

Judges: Jolly, Smith, Barksdale

Filed Date: 6/12/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024