UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-30483
Summary Calendar
_____________________
MARY BLANCHARD, on behalf of
the minor child Megan Blanchard,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(99-CV-455-L)
_________________________________________________________________
November 26, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mary Blanchard appeals the district court’s decision to
dismiss her case with prejudice in response to Wal-Mart’s 12(b)(6)
motion. The district court held that Louisiana law precluded
Blanchard’s claim. Blanchard now argues that the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy was too low to establish diversity jurisdiction. She
had attached a stipulation to her response to Wal-Mart’s motion to
dismiss that damages would not exceed $75,000.
The amount in controversy in this case establishes diversity
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
jurisdiction. In order to defeat subject matter jurisdiction on
that basis, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim
asserted is for less than $75,000. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47
F.3d 1404, 1409 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not find
such a legal certainty, and we see no reason to overturn that
determination in the face of the injuries alleged, including a
severely fractured skull, concussion, and emotional distress.
Blanchard’s proposed stipulation is irrelevant. According to
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-
90, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938), “[e]vents occurring
subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount
recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.”
This circuit recently reaffirmed that this is still good law in
De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412. The district court was right to
ignore Blanchard’s stipulation.
For these reasons, the district court decision is
A F F I R M E D.
2