Burden Of Proof For Removal

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

• Baker v. Clear Blue Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Vargas v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, necessitating remand.
• Connell v. Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Kohrig v. Pavilion at Healthpark LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• Wardak v. Goolden
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Hughes v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Crawford v. Rodriguez de Hernandez
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that settlement proposals and policy limits alone are insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• Scala v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-24
  The court held that the defendant successfully demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
• Harris, Jr. v. Matsberidze
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20
  The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
• Scala v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-06
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring supplementation of the removal notice.
• Anderson v. Khanna
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-10
  The court held that the defendant adequately demonstrated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Cheves v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-03
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not provide sufficient factual allegations to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Smith v. Brinker Fla., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-15
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• AUM Realty II FL, LLC v. Vantage Risk Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-02
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction after removal.
• Anderson v. Amazon.Com Servs. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-01
  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 at the time of removal.
• Altman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-23
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Bulla v. Neal
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-19
  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.
• Rosito v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-11
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
• Gubanich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-28
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case to federal court was untimely, requiring remand to state court.
• Bluewave Commc'n Servs., Inc v. PMRG Fiber Corp
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not providing sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's principal place of business, necessitating remand.
• Vazquez v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, requiring remand to state court.
• Alum Fund, LLC v. Greater Nev. Credit Union
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-12
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was improper because the plaintiffs' joinder of non-diverse defendants was not fraudulent and there was a plausible nexus between the claims, thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Michael v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-04
  The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish the amount in controversy for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
• Koach v. Maynard
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
• Martinez-Lopez v. Bowden
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond generic allegations and the cover sheet.
• Lima v. Howard
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is generally insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, but it can be considered as some evidence when combined with other supporting facts.
• Davis v. RTM Operating Co., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-25
  The Florida civil cover sheet, by itself, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction; defendants must provide additional evidence beyond the cover sheet and generic complaint allegations to meet their burden of proof for removal.
• Simpson v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the jurisdictional amount for removal, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Jones v. Kaushal
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-14
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, requiring remand.
• Williams v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-14
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• Dewar v. Direct Interactions, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-07
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Walsh v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-29
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction for removal based on diversity.
• Gallo v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-12-12
  The court held that because the parties failed to provide sufficient information to determine the applicable state law for interpreting the arbitration agreement, and because Plaintiffs disclaimed recovery for exposures covered by arbitration agreements, federal jurisdiction was
• Ghadiri v. Nordstrom Rack
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-28
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, as the civil cover sheet alone was insufficient to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-17
  The court granted the motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA or federal question jurisdiction.
• Friendly Mkt. Inc. v. Century Sur. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-07
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately plead the citizenship of the LLC's members or the amount in controversy.
• Gayatri Props. LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-07
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not demonstrate the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff LLC.
• Ready2go Aviation LLC v. Galistair Trading Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17
  The court held that the defendants properly removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
• Bivins v. Holiday CVS, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-01
  The court held that a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity purposes includes all its partners, and the defendant failed to establish diversity by only providing general partner citizenship.
• Drummond v. Alsaloussi
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-31
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to potential lack of complete diversity and remanded the case to state court.
• Hughes v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-27
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold.
• Oxford v. Walmart Stores E.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-11
  The court held that a fictitious party defendant's citizenship is disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus removal was proper.
• Fletcher v. United Ground Express, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-10
  The court held that a non-removable workers' compensation retaliation claim requires remand of the entire case when the remaining claims are based solely on diversity jurisdiction, and the removing party failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Cintron v. Eldrick
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05
  The court held that a pre-suit settlement demand, without specific supporting details, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• King v. Germania Select Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-28
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Weiss v. Trans Union LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-25
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint did not present a federal question and the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was speculative and not established.
• Upthagrove v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-17
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal diversity jurisdiction was not met.
• Hill v. Kenyon Power Boats, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-11
  The court granted the motion to remand, finding the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal enclave.
• Gillespie v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-03
  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 case must be remanded.
• Apolinar v. Equifax Data Servs. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-29
  The court held that removal was improper due to lack of federal question jurisdiction, but denied attorney's fees because the plaintiff settled with the removing defendant.