Maria Flores v. Union Pacific Railroad Company , 426 F. App'x 330 ( 2011 )

Case: 10-51085 Document: 00511488351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 25, 2011
No. 10-51085 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
MARIA FLORES
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CV-266
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After Plaintiff-Appellee Maria Flores sued Defendant-Appellant Union
Pacific Railroad Company in a Texas state court seeking recovery of healthcare
expenses she incurred as a result of her minor child having been struck by a
railroad train belonging to Union Pacific, it filed to have the case removed to the
district court. Even though Flores had expressly pleaded that the amount in
controversy was less than $75,000, Union Pacific nevertheless based its
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-51085 Document: 00511488351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2011
No. 10-51085
assertion of federal jurisdiction on the fact that Flores had retained three expert
witnesses. Union Pacific argued that “common sense” shows that Flores was
likely seeking more than $75,000 in damages.
The district court rejected Union Pacific’s contention and remanded the
case to state court, noting that “Defendant here has offered no evidence at all,
only rank speculation that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed $75,000.” The district
court subsequently awarded Flores $8,050 against Union Pacific for attorneys
fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). The court concluded that Union Pacific, as
the removing defendant, lacked “objectively reasonable grounds to believe the
removal was legally proper.” 1
Our de novo review of the record on appeal and of the applicable law, as
applied by the district court and as cited by the parties in their appellate briefs,
satisfies us that the district court correctly remanded this case to the state court
in which it had been filed originally, and that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding Flores attorneys fees of $8,050. Accordingly, the district
court’s orders remanding this case and awarding attorneys fees are, in all
respects,
AFFIRMED.
1
Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d, 290, 293 (5th Cir. 2000).
2