Amount In Controversy

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

• Harris v. Harris
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-17
  The court held that the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, must be dismissed because it failed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum for diversity jurisdiction.
• Cati v. Coulson
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-17
  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.
• Brese v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-16
  The court granted the defendant's motion to file a lien document under seal.
• Pio v. JDA P'rs Tech.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-16
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the citizenship of the defendant limited liability company and its members.
• Carruitero v. Sintim
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because the notice of removal and complaint did not sufficiently allege the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Razaqyar v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-02
  The court held that the amount in controversy for the remaining declaratory relief claim was below the $75,000 threshold, requiring remand to state court.
• Matrix Advertising, LLC v. Gilman
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-01
  The court held that removal to federal court was improper because the plaintiff's amended complaint did not establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
• Dov Samuel Markovich v. Eliav Jecoby
  15th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2020-11-30
  Appellant Markovich appealed a judgment evicting him from a residence, arguing the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the action was a foreclosure, not an eviction. The appellate court agreed, finding that the quitclaim deed was intended as security for a $65
• Nadal v. The Cooper Cos., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-27
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Williams v. Dolgencorp LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-25
  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.
• Sanchez v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-24
  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.
• Gubagoo, Inc. v. Orlando
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-20
  The court held that the second amended complaint properly alleged joint liability, satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and that transfer of venue to Arizona was not warranted under the circumstances.
• Bailey v. Stamco Ship Mgmt. Co., Ltd.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-12
  The court held that the notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because it failed to adequately plead the citizenship of all parties and the amount in controversy.
• GHF Am. Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-09
  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 for diversity jurisdiction.
• Dero Roofing, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-09
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Katz v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-06
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, denying the motion to remand.
• Clayton Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Squire Dental Mgmt. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction, both regarding the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, requiring remand to state court.
• Edgewater Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Balis
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-03
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Sanchez v. The Home Depot USA, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-30
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Parker-Merrill v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-29
  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, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Beauliere v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-29
  A pre-suit settlement demand letter, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction if it lacks specific evidence substantiating the plaintiff's damages, particularly future medical expenses.
• Clinch v. C&S Wholesale Servs., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-29
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 threshold, and therefore remanded the case to state court.
• Seager v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-28
  The court held that the insured's suit against their own insurer was not a direct action, establishing diversity jurisdiction, and that removal was timely based on a settlement demand email. Both motions to remand and strike were denied.
• Salama v. Hammonds
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-28
  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.
• Physicians Imaging-Lake City, LLC v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-26
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to sufficiently establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Clayton Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Squire Dental Mgmt. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-23
  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 parties and the amount in controversy.
• Robinson v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-19
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Walker v. Mid Century Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-13
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Koppey v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-13
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus diversity jurisdiction was not met.
• Cassella v. The Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-07
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the commencement of the action, and the addition of a bad faith claim does not reset the removal clock.
• Tall v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-05
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion to remand, finding the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Tall v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-05
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion to remand, finding the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Tall v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-05
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion to remand, finding that the defendant established the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-28
  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.
• Day v. Sarasota Doctors Hosp., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-28
  The court held that it has subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA because the minimal diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements were met, and the exceptions to CAFA were not timely raised.
• Lopez v. Martens
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-24
  The court held that a stateless defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction, and that the defendant was not a dispensable party, requiring remand.
• Kitler v. Grundman
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-23
  The court held that the defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal and that the parties were diverse.
• Carmickal v. Sun Steaks LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-17
  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.
• Thompson v. Target Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-16
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and for fees, finding that the prior order enforcing the settlement was not void and that the plaintiff's claims regarding jurisdiction were untimely or lacked merit.
• Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-10
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the plaintiff's discovery responses, which unambiguously established federal jurisdiction.
• Durshimer v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-08
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, necessitating remand to state court.
• Nieves v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-08
  The court held that it could not assume subject matter jurisdiction based on a stipulation to correct a party's name, especially when the substitution involved different business entities and lacked sufficient citizenship allegations.
• Wimunc v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-04
  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.
• Echevarria v. Taco Bell of Am., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-02
  The court held that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met, even considering a post-removal settlement demand, by inferring reasonable attorney's fees accrued prior to removal.
• Liebing v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-31
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Byerley v. NVR, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-27
  The Court granted Plaintiff's 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 for diversity jurisdiction.
• Aijde Wanounou, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-26
  A settlement demand alone, without supporting evidence demonstrating its reasonableness, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Accident Ins. Co., Inc. v. V & A Drywall & Stucco, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint for declaratory relief must be dismissed without prejudice due to deficiencies in pleading subject matter jurisdiction.
• Maurice Sporting Goods, LLC v. Samples
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint did not sufficiently establish subject matter jurisdiction due to unclear allegations regarding the citizenship of the LLC and its members.
• Bobcat N. Am., LLC v. Inland Waste Holdings
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2020-08-17
  The Court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction because the "amount in controversy" for the purpose of an arbitration exception in the Unit Purchase Agreement (UPA) includes prejudgment interest and is determined as of the date the complaint was filed. Therefore, the excep