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

• Lacambra v. TForce Freight, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-06
  The court held that while Plaintiff's state law claims against TForce were preempted by the Carmack Amendment, the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 threshold for federal jurisdiction, necessitating remand.
• Harkins v. Knipp
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Guerber v. Kuvondikkhuzhayev
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court held that the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint were defective and did not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Villas Las Palmas Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the plaintiff did not fraudulently join the roofer, as there was a possibility of stating a cause of action against him and the joinder satisfied permissive joinder standards under Rule 20.
• Pratt v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-30
  The court held that the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint were defective and did not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC v. Proctor
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-30
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for federal jurisdiction, thus the case must be remanded.
• Guite v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-29
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal.
• Truist Bank v. Milton Constructors LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-28
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship and deposit the disputed funds into the court registry.
• Hammond v. W. Express Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-25
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Routeware, Inc. v. Carver
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-25
  The court recommended granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment and permanent injunction because the defendant willfully failed to defend the action and the plaintiff adequately alleged a breach of contract claim and grounds for injunctive relief.
• Evanston Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• 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
• Spears v. Collado
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-22
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Lingard v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their MLA claims because their alleged injury was not fairly traceable to defendants' conduct, and thus declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraud claims.
• Hunter v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• M&M Private Lending Grp., LLC v. Jbba Holdings, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-15
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and therefore the case should be remanded to state court.
• Storey v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity, requiring supplementation of its removal notice.
• Adams v. Circle K Stores Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-11
  The court held that the jurisdictional allegations were defective and the plaintiff must provide sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Shue v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-11
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore the case must be remanded.
• Evans v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-11
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Elmore v. 7 Eleven
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-10
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction and was therefore frivolous.
• Johnson v. The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Ass'n Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Evanston Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  The court held that the defendant must supplement its notice of removal because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Isaac v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  A defendant removing a case to federal court must provide specific factual allegations to plausibly establish the amount in controversy, and conclusory statements or unsupported demand letters are insufficient.
• Scott v. Hammond
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-03
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of diversity and federal question, and therefore recommended dismissal of the complaint.
• Am. Builders Ins. Co RRG, Inc. v. Carrollton Premiere Roofing, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  The court recommended granting the motion for default judgment, finding the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured due to policy exclusions.
• Ally Bank v. Johnson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-01
  The Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case and therefore denied the defendant's motion for emergency intervention and remanded the case to state court.
• Conley v. Vacanti
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing the federal copyright claim, and therefore dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.
• David v. Wawa, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  The court found the plaintiff's complaint lacked sufficient allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction and ordered the plaintiff to file a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement. The court also ordered the defendant to file a properly redacted exhibit due to a violation of Rule 5.2.
• Alligood v. Sunshine Bus. Mgmt. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-26
  The court recommended granting in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, directing entry of final judgment against BKR Holdings on Count I for $170,844.54 plus interest and attorney's fees.
• Hunter v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction due to inadequate allegations regarding the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy.
• Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA v. Zeng
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims because diversity jurisdiction existed at the time of filing and/or supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate as the state law claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal clai
• McClellan v. RXO Corporate Solutions, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-23
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations regarding the citizenship of individuals, unincorporated entities, corporations, estates, and trusts, and the amount in controversy.
• Pepe v. Harrell
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, and thus the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Rodgers v. Matthiesen
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately allege facts to demonstrate the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Shue v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to supplement its notice of removal.
• Johnson v. The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Ass'n Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-09
  The court recommended dismissal of the amended complaint because it constituted a shotgun pleading and failed to adequately plead subject matter jurisdiction, but granted the pro se plaintiff one more opportunity to amend.
• Herring v. Yelm
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-06
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because their notice of removal lacked sufficient allegations regarding the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy.
• DeLiso v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-03
  The court held that State Farm provided sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy for removal, but must provide further evidence regarding the plaintiff's citizenship.
• Valdastri v. Valdastri
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship.
• Dillon v. Phoenix House Citra
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he failed to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction or a federal question, and his claims for emotional distress are insufficient under Florida law.
• Lakeshore Tech. Coll. v. Anthology Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-30
  The court held that Lakeshore Technical College is a citizen of Wisconsin, not an arm of the State, and therefore diversity jurisdiction exists; the court also held that the parties' forum-selection clause is enforceable and requires transfer of the case.
• Alexander v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-23
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Rodgers v. Matthiesen
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-22
  The court held that the pleadings failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Baker v. Clear Blue Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Yeomans v. Ferland
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-08
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day clock for removal did not begin until the defendant ascertained the plaintiff's citizenship, which was provided in a response to a request for admission.
• Potter v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-05
  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.
• Boyarkin v. Skorev
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-02
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction, warranting dismissal of the case.
• Maxum Indem. Co. v. Shahly
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-25 ·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction in its declaratory judgment action.
• Vargas v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, necessitating remand.