Summary Calendar EMILY SCIPPER v. Bunge Corp

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60250
Summary Calendar
EMILY SCIPPER
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BUNGE CORP, et al.
Defendants
BUNGE CORP; DAVID TOLLIVER
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford
USDC No. 2:00-CV-43-P-B
--------------------
August 23, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Emily Scipper appeals the district
court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellants Bunge
Corporation (Bunge) and David Tolliver.
Scipper’s first argues that the district court erred in
refusing to remand this case to state court. Scipper’s argument
utterly fails to deal with the inescapable fact that the last
sentence of her complaint asks for “judgment of, from and against
the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-60250
-2-
$150,000.” As the district court pointed out, the amount
requested from each defendant is greater than $75,000. The
minimum jurisdictional amount requirement is thus satisfied.
Scipper’s second argument is that the district court erred
in finding that Tolliver was fraudulently joined. The test is,
as Scipper recognizes, whether there is no possibility that the
plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against the
instate defendant. Tolliver’s affidavit, which Scipper does not
address and did not counter, makes it perfectly clear that the
test has been satisfied and that Tolliver was fraudulently
joined.
Finally, Scipper argues that summary judgment was not
proper. Again, Tolliver’s affidavit, not countered by Scipper,
makes it clear that Bunge had no responsibility for the placement
of the cars that allegedly obstructed her view.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-60250
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --