MORRISON
v.
TARGET CORPORATION

M.D. Fla. | 2022-01-18
No. 2:21-cv-954
District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

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.

Holding

The court held that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum required for removal.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's medical bills were approximately $31,200, but the d…

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.

Topics
Federalism Concerns Removal Statutes Amount In Controversy Preponderance Of The Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federalism Concerns cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s response (Doc. 10) to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3). Target tried to show the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum. Because it did not do so, the Court remands. Removal is proper when the district court has original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The jurisdictional minimum in federal court is an amount over $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Where, as here, the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the

608 F. 3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010). Of course, the Court cannot do so. Target seems to misunderstand the law. It contends including the unquantified amounts “can easily meet or exceed the $75,000 minimum.” (Doc. 10 at 3). But the inquiry is not whether the injuries can meet the minimum. Rather, the question is whether Target carried its burden to “prove” the amount “more likely than not exceeds the applicable jurisdictional requirement.” Pretka, 608 F. 3d at 752 (cleaned up). Because Target failed to do so, the Court must remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that Court. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 18, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Because of “significant federalism concerns,” courts interpret removal statutes strictly and resolve all doubts in favor of remand. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). Target contends more than $75,000 is in dispute when considering Plaintiff Jack Morrison’s medical bills alongside his subsequent injuries and claimed noneconomic injuries (e.g., pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish). Currently, Morrison’s medical bills are almost $31,200. This amount does not include bills for later injuries (a broken arm and torn rotator cuff), which Morrison attributes to side effects of his injuries from the slip and fall. What’s more, Target learned Morrison’s doctor recommended another eye surgery that he may ascribe to the original incident. As before, Target provides nothing from which the Court can conclude it has jurisdiction. While it filed the medical bills, Target still offers nothing suggesting the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The cost of Morrison’s potential future treatment is speculative. And the noneconomic injuries are too. On this record, the Court could do little more than “hazard a guess on the jurisdictional amount in controversy.” See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.,

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw