Amount In Controversy

1,259 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 81 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Goldberg v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  678 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that potential attorneys' fees cannot be aggregated to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in a class action, as each class member's claim must independently meet the threshold.
• Shasaku Mizukami v. Buras
  419 F.2d 1319· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that substitution of heirs for a deceased defendant is not permitted when the defendant died before the action was filed, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper due to insufficient amount in controversy.
• Hardy v. Strayer Univ., LLC
  2025 WL 615181· M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants met their burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the plaintiff's motion to remand was denied.
• Busalacchi v. Guhl
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Capstone Funeral Holdings of FL LLC
  2020 WL 1277508· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Federated Mutual Insurance Company seeks appointment of an umpire to resolve a disagreement over property damage under an insurance policy with Capstone Funeral Holdings. The court denies the motion without prejudice due to unresolved disputes regarding subject matter jurisdictio
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the parties' joint motion to stay the bad faith claim pending resolution of the motion for remand.
• Simring v. GreenSky, LLC
  29 F.4th 1262· 11th Cir.· 2022-03-28 ·cited 2×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the remand order and that the district court erred in applying CAFA's local controversy exception, reversing the remand.
• Plutt v. Ross
  230 So. 3d 883· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a final judgment. The court held that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction because the initial complaint in good faith sought damages exceeding the $15,000 threshold, even though the final award was less.
• Leon v. First Liberty Ins.
  308 F. Supp. 2d 236· M.D. Fla.· 2012-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship existed.
• Toskich v. J.H. Inv. Servs., Inc.
  806 F. Supp. 2d 1224· M.D. Fla.· 2011-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined because it was in bankruptcy prior to the filing of the state court action, rendering the joinder void and defeating diversity jurisdiction.
• Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples DE v. Epraim Cintron
  44 So. 3d 623· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-08-06 ·cited 2×
• Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth.
  2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 844· M.D. Fla.· 2007-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Jacksonville Aviation Authority's lease agreement with Majestic Realty Company was not unlawful under JAA's Charter, Florida Statutes, or the Florida Constitution, as it did not constitute an unlawful joint ownership or lending of credit.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Greater Chiropractic Cen.
  393 F. Supp. 2d 1317· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking for claims against two of the four defendant corporations due to insufficient amount in controversy, while jurisdiction was proper for claims against the other two.
• Lutz v. Protective Life Ins.
  328 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2004-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the case was improvidently removed.
• White v. Bombardier Corp.
  313 F. Supp. 2d 1295· N.D. Fla.· 2004-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the removing defendants failed to establish a basis for removal without the consent of a co-defendant against whom a default had been entered, as they did not demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain that consent.
• Forest v. Penn Treaty Am. Corp.
  270 F. Supp. 2d 1357· M.D. Fla.· 2003-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1367 abrogated the Zahn rule and unnamed plaintiffs' claims can be considered for diversity jurisdiction, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the unnamed plaintiff's actual claim for restitution exceeded the $75,000 amount in controvers
• Klempner v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1233· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
• First Guar. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Reeves
  86 F. Supp. 2d 1147· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-11 ·cited 2×
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case if the plaintiff's claim, on its face, does not meet the amount in controversy requirement, even if the defendant's counterclaim exceeds that amount.
• Stoller v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA
  934 F. Supp. 423· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pure bill of discovery does not present a sufficient amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, as the value of the information sought is not pecuniary.
• SEA Breeze v. The Honorable Philip A. Federico
  648 So. 2d 226· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The circuit court erred in transferring a case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to the county court when the petitioners alleged an amount in controversy exceeding the county court's jurisdictional limit.
• Essenson v. Coale
  848 F. Supp. 987· M.D. Fla.· 1994-04-04 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's offer of judgment, even if not filed with the state court, can constitute an 'other paper' that makes a case removable if it first reveals the amount in controversy meets federal diversity jurisdiction requirements.
• Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott
  973 F.2d 507· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality covenants, but erred in modifying the injunction based on an incorrect interpretation of Ohio law.
• Berkshire Fashions, Inc. v. The M.V. Hakusan II
  954 F.2d 874· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a "liberties" clause in a bill of lading does not automatically defeat admiralty jurisdiction if the contract is otherwise maritime, and that further factfinding is needed to determine the contract's intended route.
• Dep't OF Rec. & Sports OF Puerto RICO v. World Boxing Ass'n
  942 F.2d 84· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Gervacio plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal remedies, warranting summary judgment, but the Commission failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient amount in controversy.
• A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Desmond Whitchurch
  937 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without affording the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to demonstrate the jurisdictional amount, and that summary judgment on the merits would also have been improper due
• Action Orthopedics, Inc. v. Techmedica, Inc.
  759 F. Supp. 1566· M.D. Fla.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attorney fees awarded under Florida common law for inequitable conduct are considered 'costs' and thus cannot be included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. However, the court found that the plaintiff's tort claim, involving additional de
• Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc.
  802 F.2d 362· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Nevada Innkeeper statute limits the plaintiff's recovery to $750, thus falling below the $10,000 amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
• Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  537 F. Supp. 244· S.D. Fla.· 1982-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that removal was proper because the amount in controversy and diversity of citizenship were sufficiently established under the liberal view, and the right to remove was not waived by the prior voluntary dismissal.
• Barlow v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  495 F. Supp. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs stated constitutional claims over which it had jurisdiction, they failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Hill-Burton Act because they did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies as required by the statute.
• Ga. Cent. Credit Union v. Martin G.M.C. Trucks, Inc.
  622 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1655 does not independently confer federal jurisdiction, and absent other grounds, a suit invoking it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Hernandez
  377 So. 2d 808· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Occidental Life Insurance Company appealed a circuit court judgment awarding medical expenses under a group insurance policy, contending the case should have been brought in county court due to the limited amount in controversy. The appellate court agreed, finding the claim fell
• Taylor v. LEE Chevrolet, Inc.
  376 So. 2d 474· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-11-07 ·cited 2×
• Wheel Horse Sales, Inc. v. Spence
  566 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's admission of partial liability does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction if the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
• Murray v. Amoco OIL Co.
  539 F.2d 1385· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and that the libel claim should be reconsidered by the district court.
• Broglie v. MacKAY-Smith
  541 F.2d 453· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged an amount in controversy to establish federal jurisdiction, even if some damages accrued after filing.
• Winniebell Fehling v. Cantonwine
  522 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1975-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claim did not meet the jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction because her husband's will forgave his share of the jointly held promissory notes.
• MAY v. The Supreme Court OF the State OF Colo.
  508 F.2d 136· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Officials acting within their official capacities are also immune from suit.
• Murphy v. Nell Bumgarner Shoemaker
  287 So. 2d 143· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-12-28 ·cited 2×
  W.F. Murphy, as executor of Samuel Smith's estate, appealed a judgment awarding plaintiff Nell Bumgarner Shoemaker $1,642.21 for reimbursement of obligations undertaken on behalf of the deceased. The court reversed and remanded because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over t
• Stanley v. Tucker
  441 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 2×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim involved property rights, not personal rights required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
• Ames v. Kuehnle
  425 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint on its face stated a cause of action, requiring reversal of the dismissal.
• Riggins v. Riggins
  415 F.2d 1259· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction is measured by the amount of the claim asserted in good faith, and the possibility of a statute of limitations defense does not negate jurisdiction.
• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Alexander
  413 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over a suit by an insurance company against postal employees for losses covered by fidelity bonds, as the claims do not meet the jurisdictional amount and do not fall under specific federal statutes conferring jurisdiction.
• Lewis v. Cook
  409 F.2d 619· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's good faith claim for an amount exceeding the jurisdictional threshold is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, even if subsequent evidence reveals the actual amount is less, unless it's a legal certainty from the outset that the plaintiff cannot recover the claimed
• Raymond A. Powers de bonis non of the Estate of Elizabeth Dorothy Keefe v. Fultz
  404 F.2d 50· 7th Cir.· 1968-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, which sought $10,000 plus interest, did not meet the jurisdictional requirement of exceeding $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
• Sanchez v. Taylor
  377 F.2d 733· 10th Cir.· 1967-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants acquired no rights in the plaintiff's land by virtue of Mexican law, grant, dedication, or common prescription, and that individual claims of prescription or adverse possession also failed.
• Gauldin v. Va. Winn-Dixie, Inc.
  370 F.2d 167· 4th Cir.· 1966-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish actionable negligence or constructive notice of a hazard on the floor, and therefore the jury verdict for the plaintiff was improper.
• Levine v. Lacy
  344 F.2d 695· 4th Cir.· 1965-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the issues presented were matters of state law and procedure.
• Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Nomie M. Namie
  341 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, and the lower court erred in granting summary judgment.
• Young v. Coop. Refinery Ass'n
  320 F.2d 485· 10th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
• Batter v. Columbus Jefferson (Joe) Williams
  316 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-29 ·cited 2×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  An attorney discharged without cause can only recover quantum meruit for services rendered if there was no definite agreed-upon fee.