-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-08
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. The Court also denied Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-28
A defendant seeking to remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction must provide plausible allegations and supporting facts to establish the amount in controversy, which Wal-Mart failed to do.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-01
The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-01-31
The court held that a pre-suit demand letter containing specific details of past and estimated future medical expenses was sufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-17
The case is remanded to state court because the defendant failed to demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction and did not pay the required filing fee.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-11
The court held that the defendant failed to sufficiently establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on diverse citizenship, requiring it to show cause why the case should not be remanded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-11
The court held that the defendants failed to sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction, requiring them to show cause why the action should not be remanded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-09-27
A removing defendant bears the burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction, and conclusory allegations regarding the amount in controversy are insufficient.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-09-01
The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, as it did not meet its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-18
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, thus granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-11
The court held that the defendant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship at the time of removal because the plaintiffs' domicile was not sufficiently pleaded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-28
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not facially appear to exceed the $75,000 requirement, and the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to meet this burden.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-06-16
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, requiring remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-23
A defendant removing a case to federal court must provide specific factual allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction, including the citizenship of all parties and a plausible amount in controversy, which cannot be based on mere information and belief or conclusory statement
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-16
The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's recoverable medical expenses, when limited by Florida law regarding collateral sources, were insufficient to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-10
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-15
The court held that the defendant failed to establish complete diversity and the requisite amount in controversy for removal, thus the case must be remanded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-21
The court held that the defendant established domicile in North Carolina, thus maintaining diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-13
The court held that the defendants met their burden to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-09-09
The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying remand, and that a valid forum selection clause required transfer to Florida.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-09
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but denied the motion to remand because the court could make reasonable deductions to reach the jurisdictional threshold.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-06-03
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy did not plausibly exceed the $75,000 threshold.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-27
A plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that their damages do not exceed $75,000 is insufficient, standing alone, to establish federal diversity jurisdiction for removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-25
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because it did not adequately plead the amount in controversy. Therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-21
The court held that the defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-03
The court held that removal was improper because the defendant failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-28
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence and denied the request for jurisdictional discovery as premature.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-20
The court held that the defendant failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, thus failing to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-16
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because it failed to plausibly allege the amount in controversy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-04
The court held that the defendant insurance company met its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-26
A pre-suit demand letter containing specific details of injuries and projected damages can establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and the citizenship of fictitiously named defendants is disregarded for removal purposes.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-01-22
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because the case was removable from the outset, and the defendant failed to remove it within the statutory 30-day period.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-02
The court held that a breach of contract claim by an insured against their own insurer is not a "direct action" under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), thus preserving diversity jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-13
The court held that plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of harm from unsolicited text messages, without alleging concrete or particularized injury, are insufficient to establish Article III standing.
-
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.·
2020-05-11
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.
-
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.·
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-16
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 plaintiff LLC's members.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-10
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 plaintiff LLC.
-
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.
-
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.