-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-24
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-16
The court held that the defendant failed to establish fraudulent joinder, meaning complete diversity was lacking, and thus the case must be remanded to state court.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-24
The court held that a stateless defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction, and that the defendant was not a dispensable party, requiring remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-15
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint only alleged residence, not citizenship.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-29
A case is not removable under diversity jurisdiction if any properly joined defendant is a citizen of the forum state, regardless of whether that defendant has been served at the time of removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-22
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction as to DAS and granted leave to amend, but found venue proper for DAS.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-23
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the plaintiff's settlement demand, not the initial complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-05
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately allege its citizenship, making it impossible to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-05
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after receiving an email that unambiguously established the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's common law claims for fraud and negligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-02
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-25
The court held that anticipated attorney's fees and costs cannot be considered when determining the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction, and the defendant failed to prove incurred fees met the threshold.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-24
The court held that removal was untimely because the defendant had sufficient notice of the amount in controversy over thirty days before filing the notice of removal. The court also found that the diversity jurisdiction exception for direct actions against insurers did not apply
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-12
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-24
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus the motion to remand is granted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-23
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction by not properly stating the citizenship of herself or the defendants.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the plaintiffs stated a colorable claim against the non-diverse defendants, thus denying the defendant's claim of fraudulent joinder and granting the motions to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the plaintiffs stated a colorable claim against the non-diverse defendants, thus preventing fraudulent joinder and requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-13
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly allege the defendant's citizenship, which is necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-10
The court held that the defendant met its burden of demonstrating fraudulent joinder, thus establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-04
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction because it failed to comply with procedural rules and lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-19
A bare-bones settlement demand, even when including attorney's fees, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction without supporting evidence of damages and incurred fees.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-15
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-08
The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus removal was proper and the motion to remand is denied.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The court held that attorney's fees and costs incurred at the time of removal, not projected future fees, should be considered for the amount in controversy in removed cases.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-31
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-09-25
The court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to state a claim and lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-19
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for premises liability and denied the motion to remand due to sufficient evidence of the amount in controversy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2014-10-20
The court held that the amount in controversy for the breach of contract claim against the insurer did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
-
978 F.2d 437·
8th Cir.·
1992-10-29
-
969 F.2d 373·
7th Cir.·
1992-07-22
The court held that attorney neglect alone does not constitute good cause for failing to properly serve process within the required time, but that the $250,000 damage limit under Wis. Stat. § 345.05 applies to claims arising from negligent operation of a municipal motor vehicle,
-
1992 WL 110958·
S.D. Fla.·
1992-05-13
A defendant's notice of removal can supply missing jurisdictional facts not present in the plaintiff's complaint, provided those facts are not contradicted.
-
846 F.2d 495·
8th Cir.·
1988-05-10
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the statutory damages and potential attorney fees were insufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount.
-
424 F.2d 717·
5th Cir.·
1970-04-09
The court held that the parties were entitled to share equally in the appreciated value of the trust corpus and accumulated income, adopting the district court's reasoning.