IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 10, 2009
No. 08-30295
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
RODNEY ATKINS; HEBERT L. BREAUX; RAYMOND AUSTIN;
DEMOND BANKS; JOHN L. BOOKER; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FERRO CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
**********
JACQUELINE T. SPEARS; SIMON P. ARMWOOD; JANICE BARKLER;
ARCHIE L. BORSKEY; JOE L. CLARK; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FERRO CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
**********
**********
JOSHUA ASHLEY; MICHAEL BELL; BRIAN BENENUTI;
ALLEN BABIN; COREY BROWN; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ED FRINDT, Ferro Corporation, Plant Manager,
Defendant-Appellee.
**********
PAUL BAKER; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FERRO CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
**********
JOSHUA ASHLEY; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FERRO CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
**********
2
**********
WILL GASPARD; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ED FRINDT, Plant Manager; FERRO CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
No. 3:03-CV-945
Before SMITH, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The parties dispute whether the amount in controversy is sufficient for
diversity jurisdiction. We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the
record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We also have consulted applic-
able sources of law.
We can look to similar cases to assist in determining the amount in contro-
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
3
08-30295
versy. See, e.g., Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81, 82-83 (5th Cir. 1993). This case
is largely controlled and informed by No. 07-30530, In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire,
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 2009).
The district court, albeit without benefit of the decision in Exxon, correctly
decided that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Because plain-
tiffs presented no expert testimony in support of causation, there is no error in
the summary judgment to Ferro Corporation. See Allen v. Pa. Eng’g Corp., 102
F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the
reasons given by the district court.
4