EVANS
v.
HOME DEPOT USA, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant met its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
Plaintiff sought to remand a trip-and-fall action removed by the defendant. The plaintiff argued the removal notice was unsupported and lacked suffici…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof For Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are Plaintiff Matthew Evans' Amended Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) and Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.'s Response in Opposition (Doc. 22). For the below reasons, the motion is denied.
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The “removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F. 3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). Defendant invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction over this trip-and-fall action. (Doc. 1¶¶ 5–16). А federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a civil action where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because the complaint alleges only the state-court jurisdictional
amount, Defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B).
Plaintiff argues that “Defendant merely filed a notice of removal with unsupported statements.” (Doc. 21 at 10). He also asserts that a “demand letter was not included in the Defendant's notice of removal” but, even if it was, "the court should not consider Plaintiffs settlement demand from a prior law firm as conclusive evidence[.]" (Id. at 11, 12). For these reasons, he seeks remand.
But the factual premise of Plaintiffs motion is wrong. Defendant did not file an unsupported notice of removal. Defendant did attach a demand letter to its notice. (Doc. 1-4). And, while such demand letters generally do not prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, Defendant attached more than a mere demand letter. Defendant included with its notice of removal detailed documentation showing that Plaintiff has incurred over $100,000 in medical bills. (Id. at 8–33). Plaintiff does not mention, much less challenge, the medical bills. This evidence is sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Dewitte v. Foremost Ins., 171 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1290 (M.D. Fla. 2016) ("[M]edical bills related to treatments a plaintiff has undergone after an injury are sufficient to establish the amount in controversy.").
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 11, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record