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

• Leaf Cap. Funding, LLC v. Dawson
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-22
  The court denied the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold, particularly regarding attorney fees.
• Bulla v. Neal
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-19
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Rosito v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-11
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Phillips v. Grayson
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-09
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, granting the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
• Zaidan v. Ean Holdings, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-08
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand a diversity jurisdiction case to state court, finding that the defendant failed to establish the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000 as required for federal jurisdiction. The defendant's untimely response was treated as unopposed.
• Aguila v. Rqm+ LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-08
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was properly established, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
• Gubanich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-28
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case to federal court was untimely, requiring remand to state court.
• G&M Ests. USA, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief, even if potentially duplicative of the breach of contract claim, was sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss at this stage.
• Montanez v. Slusars
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-27
  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.
• Bluewave Commc'n Servs., Inc v. PMRG Fiber Corp
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not providing sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's principal place of business, necessitating remand.
• Vazquez v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, requiring remand to state court.
• Hill v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-17
  The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to remand, but denied the request for attorney fees as premature.
• Alum Fund, LLC v. Greater Nev. Credit Union
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-12
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was improper because the plaintiffs' joinder of non-diverse defendants was not fraudulent and there was a plausible nexus between the claims, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Throgmartin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-11 ·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Michael v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-04
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
• Robinson v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-24
  The court held that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met, and therefore, the motion to remand was denied.
• Dua v. Global Growth Holdings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-23
  The Court held that the complaint failed to establish complete diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly allege the citizenship of the members of the defendant LLCs.
• More Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-17
  The court held that a plaintiff's conclusory estimation of damages is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Meke Rest. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-03
  The court held that the defendant sufficiently established the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Rothwell v. Zulinke
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-01
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity among the parties, requiring dismissal of the case.
• Kalergis v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction by inadequately pleading the plaintiff's citizenship and the amount in controversy.
• Pascone v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The court held that a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a non-diverse defendant after removal will be denied if the amendment's primary purpose is to destroy diversity jurisdiction and the plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim against the proposed defendant.
• Parsons v. Changco
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under Florida's RICO statute because he could not establish the required "continuity" element of a pattern of criminal activity. The court also noted potential issues with subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Woodfield Acquisitions v. Fla. Inst. of Tech., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The Court held that the amended complaint failed to establish complete diversity jurisdiction because it did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the limited liability company's members.
• Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-22
  The court held that while some plaintiffs' claims met the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, one plaintiff's claims did not, leading to dismissal of that plaintiff's case.
• Trisura Specialty Ins. Co. v. Off the Traxx, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-15
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to sufficiently establish subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequate pleading of LLC citizenship, but granted leave to amend.
• Hampton 110 LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-11
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, requiring remand to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Chapman v. Truist Bank
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-08
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal jurisdiction, either by diversity or federal question, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
• Armstrong v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-04
  The court held that while the Ohio default judgment is entitled to full faith and credit regarding the unenforceability of the original 2006 note, it does not preclude U.S. Bank from asserting a valid lien based on the 2013 loan modification.
• Miller v. Eisen
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-03
  The court held that a motion for attorneys' fees filed after the original pleading was dismissed, and seeking fees from a co-defendant, constitutes an untimely and unpled cross-claim. Furthermore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the claim as the amount in controversy did not m
• Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Landis
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-29
  A defendant's counterclaim cannot establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant failed to meet their burden of proving jurisdiction.
• Krause v. Kohl's Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-26
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
• Davis v. RTM Operating Co., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
• Martinez-Lopez v. Bowden
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond generic allegations and the cover sheet.
• Koach v. Maynard
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
• Tabraue v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The court held that the amount in controversy, at the time of removal, exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the case was properly removed to federal court.
• Lima v. Howard
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is generally insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, but it can be considered as some evidence when combined with other supporting facts.
• Davis v. Vystar Credit Union & Affiliates
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
• Blue Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-20
  A conclusory demand in a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, without specific details or supporting documents, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-03-18
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Simpson v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the jurisdictional amount for removal, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Williams v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-14
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Jones v. Kaushal
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-14
  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, requiring remand.
• Omer v. Bath & Body Works, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-05
  The court held that defendants failed to meet their burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, as their calculation of the amount in controversy relied on impermissible speculation.
• Conti v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-26
  Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied because the notice of removal was timely filed and the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.
• Port Charlotte Lodge 2507 Order of the Sons of Italy in Am., Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-15
  The court held that the removal was untimely because the defendant had sufficient notice of the amount in controversy and the correct party identity more than 30 days prior to removal.
• Hyde v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-14
  A defendant does not waive its right to remove a case to federal court by taking actions in state court before the basis for removal, such as complete diversity and sufficient amount in controversy, exists.
• Rooney v. Camden Prop. Tr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims, premised on a lease being a negotiable instrument under the UCC, failed because Florida landlord-tenant law governs residential leases, not the UCC, and the amended complaint also lacked proper jurisdictional allegations.
• Dewar v. Direct Interactions, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-07
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Chertok v. SRS Acquiom, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-31
  The court held that the removing defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.