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

• Timko v. Pete Hunter Constr., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-17
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Gardner
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-15 ·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the plaintiff must provide additional documentation to demonstrate that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met.
• Connell v. Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Conlon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-09
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendant failed to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Santos v. Nahum
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, thus granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Kohrig v. Pavilion at Healthpark LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• Stanziale v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-02
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in its jurisdictional allegations and constituted a shotgun pleading, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
• Zeflon LLC v. World Reach Health, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-01
  Zeflon LLC, a reseller of COVID-19 antigen tests, sought payment of approximately $260,655 from World Reach Health, LLC, for tests allegedly delivered under multiple invoices, while World Reach disputed the quantities ordered, claimed undelivered shipments, and sought credits for
• Kunce v. SPM of Ala., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-01
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to establish complete diversity by not alleging the citizenship of all members of the LLC.
• Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. BCBSM, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-31
  The court held that the defendant's assertion of fraudulent joinder failed because there was a possibility that the plaintiff could state a valid cause of action against the non-diverse defendant under state law, requiring remand to state court.
• Reed v. Inland Residential Real Est. Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-28
  The court orders the parties to file a joint brief demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction, including evidence of party citizenship and the amount in controversy.
• Edwards v. Purecars Techs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-26
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship, and thus subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.
• Wardak v. Goolden
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Bellaire Multifamily Prop. Mgmt. LLC v. Lyndon S. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the plaintiff must provide further documentation to establish subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA and diversity jurisdiction, as the current allegations are insufficient.
• Hughes v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Wagner v. Smith
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-19
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and there were no procedural defects or bad faith in the removal.
• Farrell v. Gulf-to-Bay Anesthesiology Assocs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-18
  A forum-selection clause specifying a city does not preclude removal to federal court in that city if diversity jurisdiction exists.
• Romero v. Kinsale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-18
  The court held that the defendant insurers and agents failed to establish fraudulent joinder, as the plaintiff pleaded colorable, non-premature claims against the resident defendants, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Rosenbaum v. QBE Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-17
  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 minimum, and therefore, the case should be remanded to state court.
• Accident Ins. Co., Inc. v. DWF Installations, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-13
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment because it failed to adequately demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction and an actual controversy, and also failed to clarify the status of its indemnity claims.
• Meduty v. The Transformation Factory, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-10
  The court held that a liquidated damages provision was unenforceable as a penalty, rendering the amount in controversy insufficient for diversity jurisdiction, and that an unjust enrichment claim was barred by an express contract.
• Mills v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-06
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not plausibly allege facts demonstrating the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, nor did it adequately allege complete diversity.
• Demery v. PMP Asset, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-04
  The court held that the pro se litigant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore his motions to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and his cases dismissed without prejudice.
• Merrill v. Palacios-Gomez
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-03
  The court recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to prove his damages exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
• Rosenbaum v. QBE Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Petitphait v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state as a defendant cannot establish diversity jurisdiction, even if the defendant is a corporation with a principal place of business in that state.
• Croes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 because the removing party failed to establish that accrued attorney fees at the time of removal carried the claim over the threshold, but the removal was not objectively unreasonable, so costs and fees were den
• Crawford v. Rodriguez de Hernandez
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that settlement proposals and policy limits alone are insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Scala v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-24
  The court held that the defendant successfully demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
• Shoats v. Folts
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-21
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Orlando Museum of Art, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20
  The court held that a "snap removal" by non-forum defendants, before service on a forum defendant, is procedurally defective and warrants remand, as it undermines the purpose of the forum defendant rule.
• Harris, Jr. v. Matsberidze
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20
  The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Church v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  2021 WL 18· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
• Olsen v. King
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
  The court held that a presuit settlement demand, even when amended, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction when it relies on speculation and future projections without supporting evidence beyond documented incurred damages.
• Scala v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-06
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring supplementation of the removal notice.
• Harrington v. Veritext, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-29
  The court held that it has subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that no abstention doctrine applies, thus the motion to remand should be denied.
• Saylor v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-23
  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.
• Vance v. Doue & Co LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-17
  The court denied the motion for default final judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction and had discrepancies in requested fees and costs.
• Smith v. Daffin
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-16
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, warranting dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Anderson v. Khanna
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-10
  The court held that the defendant adequately demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Rouzard v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal with leave to amend.
• Wagendorp v. Araish
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to establish complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
• Perez v. Shanks
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-06
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Etienne v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-03
  The court held that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined, thus diversity jurisdiction was proper and the motion to remand is denied.
• Salguero v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-30
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was not established.
• Parsons v. Changco
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order dismissing his amended complaint were overruled, and the magistrate judge's order was adopted.
• Sturch v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was not established.
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co. v. Performance Custom Carts & Tires LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction, and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
• Solomon v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-11
  The court held that the defendant sufficiently established the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Cox
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-10
  The court held that removal of a case to federal court before service of process on a forum defendant is permissible under the "snap removal" doctrine, and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute improper gamesmanship.