-
Fla. 4th DCA·
2020-08-05
A petitioner sought mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over his consumer protection and fraud claims. The circuit court had transferred the case to county court, but the appellate court held that the circuit court erred in refusing jurisdiction b
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-29
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-23
The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-22
The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits and properly alleged diversity jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-22
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction as to DAS and granted leave to amend, but found venue proper for DAS.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-21
The court held that the defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-20
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, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-09
The court held that the plaintiff's pre-suit demands and the allegations in his complaint established the amount in controversy, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-08
The court held that the defendant LLC's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to adequately plead the citizenship of its members, which is required for diversity jurisdiction.
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2020-07-01
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a circuit court's denial of appellate attorney's fees after successfully defending against an eviction action in county court. The District Court of Appeal held that the prevailing defendants were entitled to attorney's fees und
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-24
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the pro se plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and thus dismissed the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-23
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 settlement demand, not the initial complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-12
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not identify the citizenship of all members of the defendant LLC.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-02
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-22
The court held that it has subject-matter jurisdiction because the non-diverse insurance agent is a nominal party, and that the claims against the agent should be dismissed as premature.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-11
The court held that the removing defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, thus requiring remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-05
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after receiving an email that unambiguously established the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-21
The court held that the plaintiff's Civil Remedy Notice did not provide sufficient information to establish the amount in controversy, and the thirty-day removal period did not begin until the defendant received a repair estimate via discovery.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-08
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's common law claims for fraud and negligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
A notice of removal is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction if it fails to adequately plead the citizenship of the parties and lacks plausible factual allegations for the amount in controversy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
A federal court that dismisses a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees based on a state statute.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-17
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence, thus requiring remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-17
The court held that the non-diverse defendant was not fraudulently joined, meaning diversity jurisdiction was absent and the case must be remanded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-02
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-25
The court held that the defendant successfully established the amount in controversy, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-25
The court held that anticipated attorney's fees and costs cannot be considered when determining the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction, and the defendant failed to prove incurred fees met the threshold.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-24
The court held that removal was untimely because the defendant had sufficient notice of the amount in controversy over thirty days before filing the notice of removal. The court also found that the diversity jurisdiction exception for direct actions against insurers did not apply
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-19
The court held that removal was improper under the forum-defendant rule, requiring remand to state court, but denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-13
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failing to establish diversity jurisdiction and for being a shotgun pleading, but the plaintiff is granted leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-10
The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction by not establishing her own citizenship and the amount in controversy, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-07
The court held that claims for declaratory judgment, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and estoppel are dismissed, while the bad faith claim is abated.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-30
The court held that venue was improper because the defendant resided in North Carolina and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Florida, warranting dismissal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-29
The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Minnesota, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-24
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus the motion to remand is granted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-23
The Court held that the removal notice was timely and the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2020-01-02
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was met and that a mandatory forum selection clause in the employment agreement required transfer of the case to the Southern District of Alabama.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-30
The court granted Western Surety Company's motion for default judgment against Sunset Auto & Truck, LLC.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-23
A federal court must remand a case if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the removing party fails to prove the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-20
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
-
Fla.·
2019-12-19
The Court adopts the proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) to conform to recent legislative changes regarding appellate jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-13
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the declaratory judgment claim but denying dismissal of the breach of contract claim at this stage.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-06
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim and did not establish subject matter jurisdiction, rendering further amendment futile.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-05
The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking, requiring remand to state court. The court also granted Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-30
The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-27
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-25
The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, as speculative calculations of future damages were impermissible.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-20
The court held that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-20
The court held that the defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the case must be remanded to state court. However, attorney's fees for removal were denied.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-19
A bare-bones settlement demand, even when including attorney's fees, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction without supporting evidence of damages and incurred fees.