Amount In Controversy

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

• Smith v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-30
  The court held that defendants failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction based solely on an unsworn email from plaintiff's counsel.
• Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-29
  The Court lacks sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Kouri Group and other parties.
• Kruse v. Sam's W., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-25
  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 case must be remanded.
• Cancanon v. Extended Stay Am., Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-11
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently stated a claim for negligence.
• Iglinski v. Elec. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-04
  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.
• La Issy, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-03
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy did not plausibly exceed the $75,000 threshold.
• Aldajuste v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-03
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely and that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy, warranting remand to state court.
• Bigley v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-28
  The court held that where significant uncertainty exists regarding the amount in controversy, doubts should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.
• Ward v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-05-27
  A plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that their damages do not exceed $75,000 is insufficient, standing alone, to establish federal diversity jurisdiction for removal.
• Potter v. Coastal Auto. Reconditioning
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-25
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately plead the amount in controversy. Therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Roberts v. Hatcher
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-05-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's judicial admission, combined with supporting medical bills and future cost estimates, sufficiently established the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Auclair v. Ecolab, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Gillispie v. Izuierdo
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy for an ejectment action cannot be determined by monetary value from the defendant's perspective.
• Perez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-05-04
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which provided sufficient information to ascertain removability.
• Potter v. Coastal Auto. Reconditioning
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-30
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it failed to adequately plead the plaintiff's citizenship and the amount in controversy.
• Williams v. Edwards
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-04-28
  The Court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Auclair v. Ecolab, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-28
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence and denied the request for jurisdictional discovery as premature.
• Johnson-Lang v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-27
  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.
• Belcher v. Aramark Sports & Ent. Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, thus failing to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Section 23 Prop. Owner's v. Robinson
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-15
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a prior remand order, and even if it had jurisdiction, there was no basis for reconsideration as the original remand was proper due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Dennis v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-12
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Unwin v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, thus the case must be remanded.
• Admiral Ins. Co. v. Vprart, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-04-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not identify the members of the defendant LLC and their states of citizenship.
• Thomas v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-07
  The court held that the amount in controversy, including potential statutory attorney's fees, exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Wong v. Lexington Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-29
  The court held that a settlement demand alone is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant must provide further factual allegations to support its claim.
• Scott v. Walmart, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-17
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied because the amount in controversy was not met, and therefore granted the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• MCFS & BB, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-16
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction by not sufficiently alleging the citizenship of the plaintiffs and failing to provide a plausible allegation for the amount in controversy.
• Smith v. Bokor
  11th Cir.· 2021-03-12
  Nursing home residents and their representatives sued a real estate brokerage firm and a facility operator in Florida state court alleging fraud in obtaining nursing facility licenses, but the defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The E
• Walker v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-04
  The court held that the defendant insurance company met its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Meade v. Int'l Pontoon Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-03
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold for federal court.
• Desai v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-25
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
• McCormack v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-24
  The court held that pre-suit demand letters can be considered in determining the amount in controversy for removal purposes, and the evidence presented was sufficient to meet the jurisdictional threshold.
• 4FLAC LLC v. Transcol, S.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Rocha v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-22
  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 court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Hernandez v. ITW Food Equip. Grp., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-16
  The court held that the removing defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Hernandez v. ITW Food Equip. Grp., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-14
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the removing defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Candelario v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-05
  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.
• Roman v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-26
  A pre-suit demand letter containing specific details of injuries and projected damages can establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and the citizenship of fictitiously named defendants is disregarded for removal purposes.
• ScriptChek Visual Verification Sys., Inc. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-22
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the case was removable from the outset, and the defendant failed to remove it within the statutory 30-day period.
• Alvarez v. LoanCare LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-19
  Alvarez, a Florida mortgage borrower, sued LoanCare LLC seeking class certification for claims under Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging the defendant charged unauthorized processing fees for making payments by phone
• Earley v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-15
  The court held that the removing party failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Ross v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-12
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, and therefore the untimely removal of the case to federal court was improper.
• Castillo v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-07
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy, excluding speculative prospective attorney's fees and unsupported demands, did not exceed the $75,000 threshold.
• Pro Music Rights, LLC v. Meijer, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-05
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because it failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC's members.
• Harris v. Harris
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-29
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court, thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Desai v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-23
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient in establishing subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Marine Amendola Charleston v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to provide sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount in controversy.
• Balis v. Martin
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-18
  The court dismissed most claims for failure to state a claim or pleading deficiencies, granting leave to amend for some counts.
• Miller v. Arvest Cent. Mortg. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, as the plaintiff's allegations did not sufficiently plead an exception to Florida's punitive damages cap.
• Lopez v. SF Mkts., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-17
  A federal court may disregard the citizenship of fictitious defendants when determining diversity jurisdiction for removal purposes.