POTTER
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., 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's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant removed a premises-liability action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's pre-suit demand letter outlined medica…
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 Complete Diversity Of Citizenship cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). For the reasons outlined below, Home Depot must supplement the Notice.
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 existence of federal jurisdiction is tested at the time of removal.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). And “a 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 removed this premises-liability action by invoking diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions 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). The parties here are diverse. But the Court is not so sure about the amount in controversy.
To establish the amount in controversy, Home Depot relies on a pre-suit demand letter sent by Plaintiff and a post-suit demand in an email. The letter does not make a specific monetary demand, but it outlines Plaintiffs accrued medical bills totaling $15,027.44. It also indicates Plaintiff fractured his left foot. (Doc. 1-6). The email includes an $85,000 settlement demand. (Doc. 1- 7). The Court is not convinced these correspondences satisfy the amount in controversy.
The two-sentence demand email “does not provide any specific information as to how [Plaintiff] reached the [$85,000] figure," which is suggestive of puffery. Dennis v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 6:21-CV-335- JA-EJK, 2021 WL 1345996, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2021) (finding a sevensentence email demanding $78,000 did not establish the amount in controversy). And even looking to Plaintiffs demand letter, it outlines only $15,027.44 in accrued medical bills, which is far below the jurisdictional threshold. Without more, the Court is not satisfied that Home Depot has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
On or before May 19, 2025, Home Depot must SUPPLEMENT its Notice of Removal consistent with this Order. Failure to do so will result in remand without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 5, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. Enter. Rent A CAR, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008)