-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-06
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient because it failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and comply with local rules.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-06
The court held that the case must be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to allege complete diversity of citizenship, a requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-10
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-11-01
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' admissions in their discovery responses made the case's removability apparent.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-26
The court held that a defendant's removal of a case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the plaintiffs' responses to requests for admissions revealed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-09
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because it failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-30
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but struck the complaint, finding it failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-29
The Court lacks sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Kouri Group and other parties.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-03
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not alleging the corporation's principal place of business.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-08
The court held that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to name a specific defendant should be granted, and because this amendment destroyed diversity jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court.
-
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.·
2020-02-10
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.·
2020-01-29
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
-
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.
-
819 F.2d 116·
5th Cir.·
1987-06-15
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because the appellants stated a legitimate cause of action against the in-state defendant (Paulson) for fraudulent inducement under Texas law, thus defeating complete diversity.