Burden Of Proof For Removal

158 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Dudley v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  778 F.3d 909· 11th Cir.· 2014-12-29 ·cited 84×
  Eli Lilly appealed a district court order remanding a class action employment dispute to state court, arguing the court erred in finding that Lilly failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million under the Class Action Fai
• B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.
  663 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 69×
  A district court must not "pretrial" substantive factual issues to determine fraudulent joinder; it must resolve all disputed factual issues and uncertainties in state law in favor of the plaintiff to determine if there is any possibility of a valid cause of action against the in
• Scimone v. Carnival Corp.
  720 F.3d 876· 11th Cir.· 2013-07-01 ·cited 33×
  Passengers from the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster filed separate lawsuits in Florida state court—one with 48 plaintiffs and another with 56 plaintiffs—rather than consolidating into a single action with 100+ plaintiffs. Carnival removed both actions to federal court under
• Sibilia v. Makita Corp.
  674 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2009-12-09 ·cited 20×
  A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence, and mere speculation based on injury severity or a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate is insufficient.
• Kliebert v. The Upjohn Co.
  915 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 14×
  To establish removal jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads damages below the federal jurisdictional amount, the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff would recover at least the minimum jurisdictional amount—meaning an award below that threshold would be outs
• Tran v. Waste Mgmt., Inc.
  290 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate fraudulent joinder, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking, requiring remand to state court.
• Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
  980 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 for removal jurisdiction, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Riggs v. Smith
  953 F. Supp. 389· S.D. Fla.· 1997-01-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the insurance plan at issue falls within ERISA's safe harbor provision, meaning it is not an ERISA plan and thus state law claims are not preempted.
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Cap. One, N.A. v. Bloom
  2024 WL 1191819· M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity or federal question.
• Briggs v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, warranting remand to state court.
• BCC Apts., Ltd. v. Browning
  994 F. Supp. 1440· S.D. Fla.· 1997-08-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiff served the initial complaint, not when the defendant later filed a counterclaim.
• Richman v. Zimmer, Inc.
  644 F. Supp. 540· S.D. Fla.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to remove the case to federal court by failing to file the removal petition within thirty days of receiving the original complaint, as the complaint provided sufficient clues to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Zia v. Med. Staffing Network, Inc.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1306· S.D. Fla.· 2004-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a securities class action based solely on federal law is not removable under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) because the Act's removal provision requires claims to be based on state law.
• Klempner v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1233· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
• First Guar. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Reeves
  86 F. Supp. 2d 1147· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-11 ·cited 2×
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case if the plaintiff's claim, on its face, does not meet the amount in controversy requirement, even if the defendant's counterclaim exceeds that amount.
• PHLD P'ship v. Arch Specialty Ins.
  565 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because it did not demonstrate that the proposed class had more than 100 members.
• Droessler v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.
  64 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 1999-08-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that removal was improper because the notice of removal was untimely and the defendants failed to establish fraudulent joinder of a non-diverse party.
• Moore v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-12
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction based on the evidence provided.
• Mitchell v. Paddock
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-23
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Keiri Patricia Castillo Nunez v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-11
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Miller v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum for removal.
• Keiri Patricia Castillo Nunez v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-09
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not adequately demonstrated.
• Caine v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. & Progressive Select Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-03
  The court held that the removing defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Blue Sky Prop. Dev. & Mgmt., LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-26
  The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving complete diversity of citizenship.
• Henry v. Blazin Wings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, requiring remand to state court.
• Rosetta J. Walker v. Fid. Ins. Agency, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that the defendant insurance agent was a citizen of Utah, not Florida, thus establishing complete diversity and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Youngblood v. Total Renal Care, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Asuzene Grady v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  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, requiring remand.
• Travise Johnson v. Doe
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction based on the provided evidence.
• McCoy v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-30
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not plausibly established.
• Timeshares Direct, Inc. v. Watstein Terepka, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as the defendant's own attorney's fees incurred in litigating the fee dispute could not be counted towards the amount in controversy from the plaintiff's perspective. Therefore,
• Knowles v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish the amount in controversy for removal, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Brewster v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-16
  The court held that the removing defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the citizenship of the LLC's members was not provided.
• Kamau v. Johnson
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not properly alleging the citizenship of all defendants, and thus, the case must be remanded to state court.
• State v. Johnson
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-22
  The court held that the defendant's removal of a state criminal case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) was improper because he failed to meet the statutory requirements for such removal.
• David v. Wawa, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-14
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Gordon v. Scott
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-07
  The court held that a state law quiet title action, without any federal claims, cannot be removed to federal court, and the defendant's objections to remand were overruled.
• Snow v. Sumner
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-07
  The court held that the removing defendants failed to sufficiently allege the citizenship of an LLC defendant, thus failing to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Harkins v. Knipp
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Villas Las Palmas Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the plaintiff did not fraudulently join the roofer, as there was a possibility of stating a cause of action against him and the joinder satisfied permissive joinder standards under Rule 20.
• Guite v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-29
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal.
• Storey v. Sam's E., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity, requiring supplementation of its removal notice.
• Evans v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-11
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Gordon v. Scott
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-09
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and the case was improperly removed from state court.
• Isaac v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  A defendant removing a case to federal court must provide specific factual allegations to plausibly establish the amount in controversy, and conclusory statements or unsupported demand letters are insufficient.
• Evanston Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  The court held that the defendant must supplement its notice of removal because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Hunter v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction due to inadequate allegations regarding the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy.
• U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v. Alaniz
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient in establishing diversity jurisdiction and in complying with procedural requirements for removal.
• Rodgers v. Matthiesen
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately allege facts to demonstrate the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.