Amount In Controversy

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

• Odell v. Gordon Food Serv. Store LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore the case must be remanded to state court.
• Samples v. Geico Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-08
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus removal was proper and the motion to remand is denied.
• NCH Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. The Leapfrog Grp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-08
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, requiring remand.
• Kinsey v. Husqvarna Constr. Prods. N. Am., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-05
  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.
• Biddle v. Lowe's Home Ctrs. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-31
  The court held that attorney's fees and costs incurred at the time of removal, not projected future fees, should be considered for the amount in controversy in removed cases.
• Dukes v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-28
  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, even considering attorney's fees.
• Ringsmuth v. Repp Sports LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-23
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) regarding both minimal diversity and the amount in controversy.
• Shapiro v. Nuvasive, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's stipulation that she would not seek over $75,000 was not sufficient to defeat removal jurisdiction when the defendant presented evidence of $80,000 in medical bills.
• Rigdon v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-04
  The Court held that the Defendant's removal of the case was timely because it could not ascertain the amount in controversy until receipt of Plaintiff's discovery responses.
• Mi Pulpe, LLC v. Mexilink Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-02
  The court held that the removing 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.
• Tamiami Condo. Warehouse Plaza Ass'n, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-02
  A claim for declaratory relief is properly dismissed if it is duplicative of a breach of contract claim and the plaintiff can obtain full relief through the breach of contract claim.
• Revival Faith Ctr. Ministries Inc v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-01
  Removal was untimely because the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff acted in bad faith by deliberately concealing the amount in controversy to prevent removal beyond the one-year statutory limit.
• D'Alessandro v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, as the amount in controversy was not sufficiently pleaded.
• Espinoza v. Target Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-23
  The court held that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Maltese v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for premises liability and denied the motion to remand due to sufficient evidence of the amount in controversy.
• Leonard v. Horowitz
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-11
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that diversity jurisdiction was met and that a defendant was fraudulently joined.
• Fisher v. AutoZoners, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-10
  The court held that the defendant was not fraudulently joined, thus destroying complete diversity and requiring remand to state court.
• M.B.K. Sales, LLC. v. Designs By FMC, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-09
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
• McCasland v. Pro Guard Coatings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-06
  The court found that diversity jurisdiction exists because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000.
• Oliva v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-04
  The court held that a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy, including attorney's fees, exceeds the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal, and prospective fees are too speculative.
• Jacobs v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-30
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Nieves v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-23
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because it was filed within thirty days of receiving the plaintiff's discovery responses, which established the amount in controversy.
• Lamerson v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-08-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Parham v. Osmond
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, thus the case must be remanded. Attorney's fees for improper removal were denied.
• Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Adams Homes of Nw. Fla., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-15
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, denying the motion to dismiss.
• Reid v. Daley
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-05-06
  A prisoner sued his postconviction attorney for fraud and breach of contract, seeking $4,500 in restitution plus $25,000 for emotional distress. The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The a
• Teague v. Pepsi Co.-Frito Lay
  270 So. 3d 528· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-05-03
  A trial court does not err in granting summary judgment when the non-moving party fails to act diligently in completing discovery and does not timely move for a continuance before the summary judgment hearing.
• Scenic Health Alliance, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-08-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
• Gilbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
  M.D. Fla.· 2015-04-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand was denied because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and the bad faith and declaratory judgment claims were dismissed as premature.
• Gillinov v. Hillstone Rest. Grp., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-03-20
  The court held that a pre-suit demand letter, along with post-removal admissions, can establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, even if plaintiffs later attempt to limit the damages.
• Federated Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Restoration 1 OF S. Fla., LLC
  152 So. 3d 1292· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-01-07
  The circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory jurisdictional minimum.
• Brewster v. Manhattan Life Ins.
  M.D. Fla.· 2014-07-31
  The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was untimely because the amount in controversy was apparent from the initial complaint, which was served more than 30 days prior to removal.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. A & J Med. Ctr., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2014-05-15
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged joint and several liability to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction and adequately stated a claim for unjust enrichment against Kaizen.
• Reilly v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc.
  2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31608· S.D. Fla.· 2014-03-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, even considering injunctive relief and attorney fees, thus dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Do Rests., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins.
  1992 WL 177387· S.D. Fla.· 2013-11-26
  The court held that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but failed to adequately allege complete diversity, thus denying the motion to remand while requiring an amended notice of removal.
• LLP v. Swearingen
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2013-11-06
  American Express Bank appealed a trial court's dismissal of its breach of contract action against Marty Coley for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the two separate credit card accounts could not be aggregated to exceed the County Cou
• Albritton v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Servs. Inc.
  78 F. Supp. 241· M.D. Fla.· 2013-08-16
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because sufficient information to establish the amount in controversy was provided more than thirty days prior to removal.
• Barroso v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins.
  68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5910· M.D. Fla.· 2013-08-01
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the action commenced, and the addition of a bad faith claim does not reset the one-year removal limitation period.
• Yolene Elisias v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. & Promene Charles
  118 So. 3d 919· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-07-31
  Yolene Elisias appealed a declaratory judgment in favor of GEICO, challenging both the trial court's determination that she was excluded from coverage under the policy and its subject matter jurisdiction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court
• Marsar v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
  77 F. Supp. 822· M.D. Fla.· 2013-05-30
  The court held that the defendant met their burden of proving the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and thus, removal was proper.
• Hoewischer v. Deerwood Vill. Mall, LLC
  240 F. Supp. 585· M.D. Fla.· 2011-08-09
• United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami Dade Cnty. MRI Corp.
  56 So. 3d 121· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-03-09
• Shaver v. Ford Motor Co.
  768 F. Supp. 2d 1235· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-06
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million at the time of removal, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Kaye v. Pers. Injury Funding III, LP
  733 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2010-08-23
  The court held that the case was moot and lacked subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. BE Logistics, Inc.
  736 F. Supp. 2d 1311· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-02
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a claim under the Carmack Amendment, and the carrier's liability was limited to the declared value on the bill of lading.
• Homes by Deramo, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  661 F. Supp. 2d 1281· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-14
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that factual issues regarding coverage and exclusions required further development at the summary judgment stage, not on a motion to dismiss.
• Litchford & Christopher, P.A. v. Daniel and Jacqueline Deutsch
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2009-06-07
  A law firm appeals a trial court's order granting a motion to compel arbitration in a fee dispute with clients. The appellate court reversed, holding that the clients waived their right to arbitration by actively participating in litigation before asserting the arbitration clause
• Garfield v. SunTrust Bank
  477 F. Supp. 2d 1177· S.D. Fla.· 2006-10-23
  The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Georgia, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
• Terminix Int'l Co. v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. P'ship
  446 F. Supp. 2d 1308· M.D. Fla.· 2006-07-26
  A federal court must dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears that jurisdiction is absent, even if an appellate court has issued a mandate, if the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was not previously decided.
• Reichle v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
  396 F. Supp. 2d 1312· M.D. Fla.· 2005-10-17
  The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction in a motion to vacate an arbitration award is the amount of the award itself, not the underlying claim. Therefore, since the award was for zero, diversity jurisdiction was lacking.