Dunn v. TZ Insurance Solutions, LLC

Filing 19

ORDER dismissing 18 Amended Complaint filed by Kim Dunn for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a Second Amended Complaint within 7 days of this Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/27/2013. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KIM DUNN, an individual

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-292-FtM-29UAM

TZ INSURANCE SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of the Amended
Complaint (Doc. #18) filed on August 26, 2013, in response to
the Court’s Order (Doc. #17) dismissing the Complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.
The Amended Complaint now properly alleges the citizenship
of plaintiff.

(Doc. #18, ¶ 2.)

Defendant limited liability

corporation’s sole member is identified as MG LLC and plaintiff
states that none of the members of MG LLC are “residents of the
State of Florida.”

(Id. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff will be required to

specifically plead the citizenship of the members of MG LLC.
Although not previously addressed, the Court notes that the
jurisdictional amount in controversy may require further factual
allegations in support.

“For amount in controversy purposes,

the value of injunctive or declaratory relief is the ‘value of

the

object

of

perspective.”

the

litigation’

measured

from

the

plaintiff’s

Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255,

1268 (11th Cir. 2000)(citations omitted).

In other words, the

amount in controversy “is the monetary value of the benefit that
would flow to the plaintiff if the injunction” or declaratory
relief

were

granted.

Id.

If

the

monetary

value

is

too

speculative and immeasurable, there is simply no monetary value
for

amount

in

controversy

purposes.

Ericsson

GE

Mobile

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Motorola Commc’ns & Elecs., Inc., 120 F.3d
216, 221-22 (11th Cir. 1997); Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279
F.3d

967,

973

(11th

Cir.

2002).

Plaintiff

is

an

insurance

salesman who was told he was exempt from quotas and that he
would be paid $25.00 on every application for insurance written.
(Doc.

#18,

¶¶

6,

11,

12.)

Plaintiff

seeks

an

injunction,

reinstatement to the same position or an equivalent position
with full benefits and seniority rights, compensation for lost
wages, other compensatory damages allowable, fees, costs, and
expenses.

(Id., pp. 7-8.)

“[T]he sum claimed by the plaintiff

controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.

It must

appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less
than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”
Mercury

Indem.

Co.

v.

Red

(1938)(footnotes omitted).

Cab

Co.,

303

U.S.

St. Paul

283,

288-89

Nonetheless, plaintiff must comply

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and set forth facts supporting the claim

2

and

without

termination,

an
the

indication
Court

of

cannot

plaintiff’s
find

that

salary
the

prior

to

amount

in

controversy is more likely than not to exceed $75,000.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Amended Complaint (Doc. #18) is dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a Second
Amended Complaint within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of August, 2013.

Copies:
Counsel of record

3

27th

day