Amount In Controversy

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

• Goldsmith v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-13
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not sufficiently prove the plaintiff's citizenship and the amount in controversy. Therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Connally v. Fla. HMA Reg'l Serv. Ctr., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal jurisdiction was lacking and the case must be remanded.
• Gutierrez Polanco v. Ford
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-01-07
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists because the remaining parties are diverse, and the defendant corporation's principal place of business is in Arizona, not Florida.
• Whitney v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-01-06
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely filed and the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Rodriguez v. Evanston Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-23
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, including potential attorney's fees, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Balis v. Martin
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-20
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege damages sufficient to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional amount for their conversion claim, thus dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• De Zarraga v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-16
  A plaintiff's deliberate failure to disclose the amount in controversy to prevent removal constitutes bad faith, allowing removal beyond the one-year statutory limit.
• Hughley v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-14
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Garcia v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-10
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, denying the motion to remand, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the bad faith and declaratory relief claims as premature or duplicative.
• Burr v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-09
  The court held that the removing defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Blasini v. W. World Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-08
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Antonello v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-16
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's recoverable medical expenses, when limited by Florida law regarding collateral sources, were insufficient to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement.
• Stinson v. Highwoods Prop., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Galati Yacht Sales, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-09
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, requiring an amended complaint.
• Venus Concept USA Inc. v. Transforming Arts, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-11-05
  The court granted default final judgment for breach of contract and guaranty, awarding the principal amount due but limiting the interest rate to simple interest as per Florida law, and denied attorneys' fees and costs for non-compliance with local rules.
• Chabad Lubavitch of Pembroke Pines, Inc. v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-11-05
  Pre-suit correspondence does not constitute 'other paper' under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) to trigger the 30-day removal period; removal is timely if filed within 30 days of receiving an amended pleading or other paper after the initial pleading. The court denied the motion to remand
• Goldrich v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-11-01
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' admissions in their discovery responses made the case's removability apparent.
• Bien-Amie v. Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-29
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring remand to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-10-25
  The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kouri Group, a necessary and indispensable party whose presence destroyed diversity, could not be joined.
• Melton v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-21
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient pleading of party citizenship.
• Haan v. Johnson & Johnson Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-21
  The court held that while diversity jurisdiction was adequately pleaded, the plaintiff failed to state a cognizable cause of action, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
• Cosme v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish complete diversity and the requisite amount in controversy for removal, thus the case must be remanded.
• Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-14
  The court held that removal was timely and diversity jurisdiction was sufficiently established, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• G&W Park Condo Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-12
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Burick v. The Progressive Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000, and therefore denied their motion to remand. The court also held that transfer to the Middle District of Florida was appropriate for the convenience o
• Kmetz v. Walmart, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-06
  The court held that the defendants failed to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction, requiring them to provide more information.
• Canobinoti, LLC v. Woods
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-30
  The court held that a binding arbitration agreement compelled arbitration of the dispute, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
• Calhoun v. Allstate & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-24
  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, thus the motion to remand is granted.
• Dero Roofing, LLC v. Triton, Inc
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-16
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, requiring supplementation.
• Cuesta v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-15
  A Civil Remedy Notice attached to a state-court complaint, which clearly itemizes damages exceeding $75,000, renders the case removable and triggers the 30-day removal clock from the date of service.
• Jones v. Arby's Rest. Grp. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-13
  The court held that the defendants met their burden to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
• Pitts v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-13
  The court held that the removal was timely, the defendant did not waive its right to remove, and diversity jurisdiction was established, thus denying the plaintiff's motion for remand.
• James Dar, LLC v. OJCommerce, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-09
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying remand, and that a valid forum selection clause required transfer to Florida.
• Tymar Distrib. LLC v. Mitchell Grp. USA, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-08
  The court held that lost profits are recoverable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) for corporate competitors, thus satisfying the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court also held that the tortious interference claim was barre
• Williams v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-03
  The Court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy was met for diversity jurisdiction.
• Lee v. Korol
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Gilhooly v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-27
  The court held that pre-suit documents do not trigger the 30-day removal clock; removal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of receiving discovery responses that made removability ascertainable.
• Hart v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-26
  The court held that a defendant's removal of a case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' responses to requests for admissions revealed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Olympus Ins. Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring a show cause order.
• Helfrich v. City of Jacksonville
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-19
  The court held that it likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, is considered 'stateless' for diversity purposes.
• Oscar v. Noble Sales Co., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-14
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Dominguez v. Hyde
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-09
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because it failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties.
• Crotts v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-05
  The court held that the defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Allen v. Parker J. Motors LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-05
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue.
• SFR Servs., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-29
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not properly pleading the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC.
• Lima v. Litfin
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-28
  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.
• Woods v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-22
  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, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Star Leasing Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-17
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims arose under state law and the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Brown v. Wendy's Int'l, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but denied the motion to remand because the court could make reasonable deductions to reach the jurisdictional threshold.
• Matrix Advertising, LLC v. Gilman
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-07-06
  The court held that the defendants' removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint provided sufficient information to ascertain removability more than 30 days prior to removal.