Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

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

• Ward v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.
  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.
• Wong v. Lexington Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-29
  The court held that a settlement demand alone is insufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant must provide further factual allegations to support its claim.
• Smith v. Bokor
  11th Cir.· 2021-03-12
  Nursing home residents and their representatives sued a real estate brokerage firm and a facility operator in Florida state court alleging fraud in obtaining nursing facility licenses, but the defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The E
• Desai v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-25
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
• T&G Corp. v. United Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-09
  A court may permit joinder of a non-diverse defendant after removal if the Hensgens factors weigh in favor of joinder, even if it destroys subject matter jurisdiction and requires remand.
• Goodnight v. Boston Sci. Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-23
  # Summary Boston Scientific Corporation attempted six months after the summary judgment deadline to raise a choice-of-law argument that Massachusetts law should govern a Florida resident's punitive damages claim arising from an allegedly defective transvaginal surgical mesh impl
• Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-10
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the plaintiff's discovery responses, which unambiguously established federal jurisdiction.
• Albino Invs., LLC v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-23
  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.
• Moss v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-21
  The court held that the defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Perez v. Pop Fla. Props., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-05
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after receiving an email that unambiguously established the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Murphy v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  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.
• Caceres v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-12-05
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking, requiring remand to state court. The court also granted Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.
• Troupe v. PCS Phosphate Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-20
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the case must be remanded to state court. However, attorney's fees for removal were denied.
• Gomez v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-11-19
  A bare-bones settlement demand, even when including attorney's fees, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction without supporting evidence of damages and incurred fees.
• Massey Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-08
  The court held that a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not recognized under Florida law and must be brought as a statutory bad faith claim, which is premature until underlying liability is established. The court also held that a claim for
• Perez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-24
  The court held that the amount in controversy was met, denying remand, and dismissed several counts of the complaint as duplicative, barred by the independent tort doctrine, or not cognizable causes of action.
• Jackson v. St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division
  M.D. Fla.· 2014-10-20
  The court held that the amount in controversy for the breach of contract claim against the insurer did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Dickie v. City OF Tomah
  999 F.2d 252· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court held that the recovery of litigation expenses in a condemnation proceeding under Wisconsin law is an ancillary remedy within the original condemnation action, not an independent cause of action. Therefore, a federal court cannot entertain a separate suit for these expen
• SOO Line R.R. Co. v. Overton
  992 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-31
  The dissent argues that the majority's analysis is incompatible with Supreme Court jurisprudence on constitutional limitations on choice of law.
• Engel v. CBS Inc.
  981 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-16
  The court held that New York law governs the malicious prosecution claim and that the plaintiff has not yet pleaded sufficient facts to meet New York's special injury requirement, but should be allowed to amend the complaint.
• Capitol Indem. Corp. v. Miles
  978 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29
• Garst v. Tritle
  928 F.2d 81· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04
  The court held that a federal court should not recognize a state law retaliatory discharge claim that the state's highest court has not yet recognized, absent compelling circumstances.
• Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Juntunen
  838 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-28
  The court held that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest, did not meet the $10,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Kahn v. Hotel Ramada OF Nev.
  799 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10
  A Nevada statute limits a hotel's liability for lost guest property to $750, even in cases of gross negligence, unless the hotel expressly waives this limitation.
• Bus. Buyers OF NEW England, Inc. v. Gurham
  754 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-06
  The court held that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, and a party cannot predicate a judgment on the falsity of its own affidavit.
• Crowder v. Gordons Transports, Inc.
  419 F.2d 480· 8th Cir.· 1969-12-23
  A settlement payment made under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not bar a subsequent wrongful death action under Missouri law against a joint tort-feasor, even if the FELA payment exceeds the Missouri statutory damages limit.
• Heymann v. Sears
  415 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-05
• Dendinger v. Md. Cas. Co.
  302 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-09
  Insurers are not liable in solido with each other, even if their insureds are jointly negligent, and thus cannot aggregate policy limits to meet jurisdictional amount.
• Kresberg v. Int'l Paper Co.
  149 F.2d 911· 2d Cir.· 1945-06-11
  The court held that a Massachusetts trust, despite having corporate-like attributes, is not a "corporation" within the meaning of the statute restricting federal diversity jurisdiction for suits on certain instruments.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. Stephens
  116 F.2d 574· 5th Cir.· 1941-01-04
  The court held that the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction purposes exceeded the minimum requirement, as the total debt guaranteed was at issue, not just individual guarantor liability.