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

• WildPrepper, LLC v. Harris Aerial, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly identify the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.
• Gubanich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-03
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying removal.
• Clarke v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-27
  The court held that the plaintiff fraudulently joined the store manager as a defendant to defeat diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
• Metts v. Circle K Stores Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-22
  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 case must be remanded to state court.
• Hammad v. Lowe's Home Ctrs. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-21
  The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add non-diverse defendants and remand the case, finding that the plaintiff's attempt to destroy diversity jurisdiction was not supported by strong equities.
• Roddy v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-18
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not identify the citizenship of the members of the defendant LLC's sole member, which was also an LLC.
• Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Vacuum Dig Enters., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  The court recommended granting default judgment for breach of contract and violation of Florida's Worthless Payment Statute, awarding specified damages.
• Greenberg v. Fca US LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  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.
• Rothschild v. Kohl's Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied because the removal was timely, the forum defendant rule does not apply, and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
• Murillo Eid v. The Michaels Org., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-07
  The court held that the parties must demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically complete diversity and the amount in controversy.
• DSSBW, LLC v. Great Lakes Ins. SE
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-28
  The court held that removal was timely because the initial complaint did not establish complete diversity, and the subsequent Rule 7.1 disclosure clarified diversity, making the removal notice timely.
• Integrity Plaza LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-24
  The court held that the removal was timely, the amount in controversy was met, and a forum selection clause did not preclude removal, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Hennessy v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  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.
• Both v. Ashby
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16
  The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper pro se representation of an LLC.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Complete Care Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16
  State Farm sought specific performance and a declaratory judgment to enforce a settlement agreement that required Complete Care Centers to waive accounts receivable and dismiss pending personal injury protection lawsuits. The court denied Complete Care's motion to dismiss, findin
• Langston v. Cardona
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04
  The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, as it was filed after the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
• Cheves v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-03
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not provide sufficient factual allegations to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• James River Ins. Co. v. R.I.C., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-03
  An insurance company sought summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action to establish that an assault and battery sublimit of $50,000 in an insurance policy issued to a commercial property owner applied to bodily injury claims arising from a mass shooting incident and that t
• Litke v. P.B. Express, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-02
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Yun because the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, and the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to overcome the corporate shield doctrine.
• BienAime v. Wells Fargo Bank
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-01
  A plaintiff sued Wells Fargo Bank alleging the bank's software produced inaccurate information resulting in a $225 charge. The district court found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim appeared to arise under state law and the amount in controversy ($225) fell
• Edwards v. AxoGen, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-23
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity and an insufficient amount in controversy, and that a non-attorney cannot represent a business entity.
• Jackson v. RKW Residential
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-19
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
• Agusta v. Bank of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is deficient due to an unsigned affidavit, and the complaint fails to state a claim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction, but the plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend.
• Joseph v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-17
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of complete diversity and insufficient amount in controversy.
• Sullivan v. Joudrey
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied because the amount in controversy, based on a pre-suit demand letter, exceeded the $75,000 threshold at the time of removal.
• Ortiz v. Target Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction is determined by the face value of the plaintiff's claimed damages, including medical bills before adjustments or collateral source payments, and potential non-economic damages.
• Coley v. Bank of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to establish subject matter jurisdiction, violating pleading standards, and failing to state a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and recommended dismissal with leave to amend.
• Ambrose v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-09
  The court held that an amended complaint asserting a new claim does not constitute the commencement of a new action for removal purposes, and therefore, removal was untimely.
• Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Randall Constr. Holdings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court recommended granting in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding a specific amount for outstanding balance and interest, and requiring further briefing for attorney fees and costs.
• Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Penn-America Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint did not sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Khayrallah v. Mahon
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  The court held that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction due to a lack of diversity of citizenship.
• Realbook, LLC v. Rsui Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that a state-law declaratory judgment action concerning an insurance policy dispute was properly removed to federal court and that remand was not required, as the amount in controversy met the diversity jurisdiction threshold.
• Hollywood Imports v. Korte
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction and the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was insufficient.
• Flynn v. Thermacell Repellents, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-29
  The court held that the Fire Report did not unequivocally establish federal jurisdiction, making the removal timely.
• Doe v. Predator Catchers, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  John Doe brought suit against Predator Catchers, Inc. and Eric Schmutte for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and violations of Florida's cyber crime statute after the defendants orchestrated a sting operation in which they lu
• Hamilton v. Crete Carrier Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Jean v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court held that the plaintiff abandoned her FMLA interference claim for failure to provide information by not adequately briefing it in her response to summary judgment. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to FMLA leave because she failed to provide the r
• Engeper Am. Corp. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-23
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the case was properly removed to federal court.
• Ross v. iHeartMedia, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  Pro se plaintiff Michael Ross filed a defamation action against iHeartMedia, Inc. in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because both parties were citizens of Texas, destroying
• Smith v. Brinker Fla., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Rothschild v. Pfizer Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-12
  The court recommended dismissal of the second amended complaint because it remained deficient in multiple respects, including improper pleading, failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and inclusion of impermissible class action allegations.
• Plakosh v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-09
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely because although the amount in controversy was apparent from the complaint, the plaintiff's citizenship was not, and removal occurred within 30 days of discovery clarifying citizenship.
• Joseph v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court recommended denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Oliver v. Johnson
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
• Klarenbeek v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-02
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because the case was removable upon filing, and the defendant had knowledge of the removability requirements at that time.
• Curtis v. Burlington Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-02
  The court held that the removal was timely and that leave to amend to join a non-diverse defendant would be futile, thus denying remand and the motion to amend.
• Anderson v. Amazon.Com Servs. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-01
  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 at the time of removal.
• Phillips v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-29
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely under the one-year rule, and there was no evidence of bad faith by the plaintiff to prevent removal.
• McNeil v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-25
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, and further amendment would be futile.
• Altman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.