Amount In Controversy Requirement

84 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Griffith v. Sealtite Corp.
  903 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' separate wage claims, even when reduced to a single judgment, could not be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum amount because the underlying causes of action were separate and distinct.
• FT. Myers TAV Apts, LLC v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22
  The court held that plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, a prerequisite for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Keiri Patricia Castillo Nunez v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-09
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not adequately demonstrated.
• Machin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is granted because the amount in controversy does not meet the federal subject matter jurisdiction threshold.
• Bauman v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The removing defendant failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. Vague allegations of permanent injury coupled with unsupported pre-suit demand information constitute mere specul
• Manzini v. Cypress
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-23
  Nicolas Manzini, a former lawyer, sued Miccosukee Tribe leaders Talbert Cypress and Lucas Osceola in federal court alleging they violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and defrauded casino patrons by manipulating cash-out kiosks to avoid refunding coin change. The court found
• Maxum Indem. Co. v. Shahly
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-25
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction in its declaratory judgment action.
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Gardner
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-15
  The court held that the plaintiff must provide additional documentation to demonstrate that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met.
• Throgmartin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-11
  A pre-suit demand letter containing specific details about medical treatments and expenses can be sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy for removal purposes, even if the plaintiff later argues it does not definitively establish the amount.
• Wilson v. Ford Motor Serv. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-26
  The court held that Ford Motor's motion to compel arbitration should be granted and claims stayed, while Grieco Ford's motion to dismiss the federal warranty claim should be granted due to insufficient amount in controversy.
• King v. Germania Select Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-28
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Upthagrove v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal diversity jurisdiction was not met.
• Hedges v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-16
  A pre-suit demand letter, even if predating the initial pleading, can be considered to establish the amount in controversy for removal purposes if it provides specific details and appears to be a reasonable assessment of the claim's value.
• Thompson v. Thompson
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-07-06
  The appellate court reversed a county court's judgment in an unlawful detainer action because the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. When the defendants asserted an equitable ownership interest in the property, the case transformed into an ejectment action, which fa
• Matrix Advertising, LLC v. Gilman
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-07-06
  The court held that the defendants' removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint provided sufficient information to ascertain removability more than 30 days prior to removal.
• Granger v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-16
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because it failed to plausibly allege the amount in controversy.
• Geico Indem. Co. v. Pride
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-04
  The court held that GEICO failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction in its declaratory judgment action.
• Rubio-Benavides v. Gen. R.V. Ctr., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, requiring remand to state court. Attorney's fees for removal were denied.
• Orenstein v. Burlington Stores, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-06-29
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring remand to state court.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Maronda Homes
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-25
  A federal court that dismisses a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees based on a state statute.
• Perez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-24
  The court held that the amount in controversy was met, denying remand, and dismissed several counts of the complaint as duplicative, barred by the independent tort doctrine, or not cognizable causes of action.
• Jackson v. St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division
  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.
• Arens v. G.R. Mfg. Co.
  968 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-01
  The court held that the dismissal of the first action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper, but the dismissal of the second action as time-barred was improper for six plaintiffs whose last work dates were not established.
• ST. Francis Med. Ctr. v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  962 F.2d 1110· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-24
  The court should have considered the projected future reimbursements when determining if the amount in controversy requirement for jurisdiction was met for an individual appeal.
• Westchester Mgmt. Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  948 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-05
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 for claims arising under the Medicare Act when the Act itself provides a specific, albeit limited, avenue for judicial review.
• Bartlett v. Bowen
  816 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-17
  The dissent argues that the Medicare Act's explicit denial of judicial review for claims under $1000 is a valid assertion of sovereign immunity, barring the plaintiff's suit.
• Hopewell Nursing Home, Inc. v. Heckler
  784 F.2d 554· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not pursuing a group appeal, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Nat'l Ins. Underwriters v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  595 F.2d 546· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-26
  A federal court in a diversity suit cannot exercise pendent party jurisdiction over claims against defendants for whom there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, especially when those claims fall below the statutory amount in controversy requirement.