Amount In Controversy

1,259 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Stevens v. Walmart Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-12
  The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. The court denied the request for fees and costs.
• Your CBD Stores Franchising, LLC v. Buckwalter
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-12
  The court confirmed the arbitration award, denying the petition to vacate because the respondents received sufficient constructive notice of the final arbitration hearing.
• Westview Realty Corp v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-06
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Pintos v. Martinez
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-03
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Ramos v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-13
  A post-removal settlement offer, unsupported by specific damages information, does not negate the amount in controversy established at the time of removal.
• Scheible v. Stillwater Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-07
  A defendant seeking to remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction must provide specific facts demonstrating the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; conclusory allegations are insufficient, and the burden is on the defendant to prove jurisdiction.
• Rosenfeld v. Aerovanti, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-31
  The court held that the complaint failed to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Solomon v. Suncoast Credit Union
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal jurisdiction under CAFA or federal question jurisdiction, thus the motion to remand must be granted.
• Colpoys v. Future Motion, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are citizens of Florida, requiring remand to state court.
• Bailes v. Westrock Container, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder, thus the forum defendant rule applied and the case must be remanded.
• Tesorero v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-15
  The court held that a defendant's removal of a case is timely if filed within 30 days of receiving an 'other paper' from which removability can be ascertained, even if the defendant had prior knowledge of facts suggesting removability before the initial pleading was filed.
• Pratt Corrugated Holdings, Inc. v. Porter Pizza Box of Ohio, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-11
  The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, finding it to be a proper and more convenient forum.
• Cain v. Lowes Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Delpino v. Keeven
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-07
  The court held that a conclusory allegation in a notice of removal is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy required for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Rodriguez v. BJ'S Rests., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-04
  The court held that the defendant's second notice of removal was timely because the plaintiff's initial complaint and subsequent medical records did not unambiguously establish federal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's later admission triggered the 30-day removal period.
• Dada v. Andross
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-28
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff must file an amended complaint to clarify the basis of the court's subject matter jurisdiction, as the current complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction and leaves diversity jurisdiction uncertain.
• Hughes v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-27
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold.
• Wendt v. Universal Prot. Serv., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-27
  The court granted the motion to remand, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Pluviose v. PHH Mortg. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-25
  The court held that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to insufficient factual allegations regarding the breach of contract. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.
• Somai v. Burgess
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-20
  The court held that the removing defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, warranting remand, but denied attorney's fees and costs.
• Drummond v. Alsaloussi
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint inadequately alleged diversity jurisdiction.
• Cerrone v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-20
  The court held that a plaintiff's admission in discovery that damages exceed $75,000 is sufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction, even if the initial complaint alleged less.
• Basf Corp. v. USA Coach LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-19
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, but the request for attorney's fees was properly stricken due to lack of legal basis.
• Astor v. TA Operating, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Oxford v. Walmart Stores E.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-11
  The court held that a fictitious party defendant's citizenship is disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus removal was proper.
• Fletcher v. United Ground Express, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-10
  The court held that a non-removable workers' compensation retaliation claim requires remand of the entire case when the remaining claims are based solely on diversity jurisdiction, and the removing party failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Cintron v. Eldrick
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05
  The court held that a pre-suit settlement demand, without specific supporting details, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Valdes v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately plead the plaintiffs' citizenship.
• Associated Energy Grp., LLC v. Lineas Aereas Suramericanas
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-27
  The court held that the complaint failed to adequately plead subject matter jurisdiction because it did not allege the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff limited liability company.
• Morris v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-26
  The court found that the defendant's Notice of Removal was deficient because it failed to establish the plaintiffs' citizenship and the amount in controversy, and therefore, the court required further supplementation before determining jurisdiction.
• Doe v. Predator Catchers, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction because the damages alleged were too vague to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement.
• Ard v. Shafro
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Accelerated Inventory Mgmt., LLC v. Golly
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-16
  The court held that the removal of the breach of contract action to federal court was improper due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Walker v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-08
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
• State Farm Mut. Autombile Ins. Co. v. Semino
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the amount in controversy, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
• Toll v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-07
  The court held that an amended class definition filed after removal may be considered when determining the applicability of CAFA's local controversy and discretionary exceptions, particularly when the amendment clarifies the original intent and does not seek to avoid federal juri
• Jones v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-31
  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 should be remanded.
• Contreras v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-31
  The court held that the removal was timely and the store manager was fraudulently joined, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Rodriguez v. Neal
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-31
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction and must show cause why the case should not be remanded.
• Wayland v. The Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-26
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it failed to adequately plead federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
• Thoene v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-26
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, requiring remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Townson v. Brinker Fla., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-25
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
• Petite v. Lyft, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-22
  The Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion to remand, finding that the joinder of a non-diverse defendant destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• Mager v. Katz
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-21
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal.
• Nock v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-16
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand because the amount in controversy did not meet the federal diversity jurisdiction threshold.
• Opdahl v. Kcap RE Fund II, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-09
  The court held that removal was improper because the defendant failed to sufficiently allege complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy.
• Breit MF Vera, LLC v. Keefer
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-08
  The court held that removal to federal court was improper because the complaint did not raise a federal question and diversity jurisdiction was not met. Therefore, the case is remanded to state court.
• Mathieus v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-02
  The court held that the amount in controversy was satisfied at the time of removal, and thus denied the motion to remand.
• Barger v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-01
  The court held that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that she was the store manager at the time of the incident, thus defeating diversity jurisdiction.
• Knorpel v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-04-30
  The court held that a statutorily mandated pre-suit notice of intent to litigate, which includes a damages estimate, is sufficient to put a defendant on notice for removal purposes, making a later removal untimely.