E.C. v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Lee County Circuit Court, transmit a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the Clerk of that Court, terminate all pending motio ns and deadlines, and close the file. Plaintiff may file a motion for attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the improper removal within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/17/2016. (AMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
E.C.,
through
CARR,
natural
a
minor,
by
and
TYLER CARR and AUDRA
her
guardians
and
parents,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-285-FTM-99CM
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand (Doc. #11) filed on May 03, 2016.
Response (Doc. #15) on May 04, 2016.
Defendant filed a
For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff E.C. filed a negligence action in state court in
which she claimed she suffered bodily injury due to Defendant
negligently
dispensing
subsequently scalded her.
dangerously
hot
(Doc. #6, p. 7.)
apple
cider
that
Plaintiff claims that
as a result of Defendant’s negligence, her damages include bodily
injury,
pain
and
suffering,
disability,
disfigurement,
mental
anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of
hospitalization, and medical and nursing care treatment.
8.)
(Id. at
Excluding costs and attorney’s fees, the claim asserted is
1
for
damages
in
excess
jurisdictional amount.
of
$15,000,
the
state
circuit
court
(Id. at 6.)
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. #5) based upon
diversity of citizenship and damages in excess of $75,000.
The
parties agree there is complete diversity of citizenship, but
disagree as to the amount in controversy component.
Because
Defendant seeks federal jurisdiction, Defendant carries the burden
to establish all components of diversity jurisdiction as of the
date of removal.
Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks
Sales,
F.3d
Inc.,
330
1308,
1310
(11th
Cir.
2003)
(citation
omitted); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001).
A defendant’s notice of removal must contain a short and
plain statement providing a plausible allegation that the amount
in
controversy
exceeds
the
jurisdictional
threshold.
Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 55354 (2014).
defendant
In some cases, this burden requires the removing
to
provide
removal is proper.
additional
evidence
demonstrating
that
Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058,
1061 (11th Cir. 2010).
In other cases, it may be facially apparent
from the pleading itself that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional requirement even in the absence of an express
claim of damages. Id.
In 2011, Congress passed the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and
Venue Clarification Act (JVCA), which “clarifies the procedure in
2
order when a defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy is
challenged.”
Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 554.
Under the JVCA, where
removal is based upon diversity jurisdiction, “the sum demanded in
good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount
in controversy.”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).
As an exception to this
rule, the Notice of Removal may assert the amount in controversy
if the initial pleading seeks a money judgment, “but the State
practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or
permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded” and
“the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in
section 1332(a).”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A),(B).
In evaluating
whether this jurisdictional requirement has been satisfied, the
court is permitted to make reasonable deductions, inferences, or
other reasonable extrapolations from the pleadings and need not
give credence to a plaintiff’s representation that the value of
the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. Roe, 613
F.3d at 1061-62, 1064.
In this case, the state court complaint has not demanded any
particular sum, and Florida practice permits recovery in excess of
the amount demanded in the complaint.
Therefore, the issue before
the Court is whether Defendant’s Notice of Removal has plausibly
alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
3
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered bodily
injury as a result of Defendant’s negligence.
She
seeks
damages
disfigurement,
for
mental
bodily
anguish,
injury,
loss
of
(Doc. #6, p. 7.)
pain
the
and
suffering,
capacity
for
the
enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing
care, and treatment.
(Id. at 8.)
Based on these asserted damages,
Defendant alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
(Doc. #5.)
In support, Defendant points to the following facts:
(1) Plaintiff refuses to provide an amount in controversy or
stipulate to damages below the $75,000 threshold (Doc. #15, p. 2);
and
(2) that
Plaintiff
asserts
that
she
has
scarring
and/or
disfigurement and that Plaintiff’s injuries are either permanent
or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer losses in the future. (Id.
at 3; Doc. # 6, p. 11.)
Moreover, Defendant cites cases with
similar injuries in which juries have awarded a Plaintiff damages
that exceed the $75,000 threshold required to satisfy the diversity
requirement of federal jurisdiction. (Doc. #15, pp. 3-4.)
In
response, and in apparent contradiction to her allegations in the
Complaint, Plaintiff argues that this case involves merely, “[a]
dime sized burn, with one office visit, a staggering $173.00 in
economic damages, a medical finding of only a ‘superficial’ injury,
and a Plaintiff’s demand of $17,500,” and that the possibility
that the claim could be valued over $75,000 “does not transform a
4
case worth less than $17,500 into a case worth more than $75,000.”
(Doc. #11, p. 7.)
As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, there are many reasons
why a plaintiff would refuse to stipulate to a damage amount.
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1320.
Moreover, a refusal to stipulate
standing alone does not satisfy a defendant’s burden of proof on
a jurisdictional issue.
stipulate
to
the
Id.
amount
of
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s refusal to
damages
lends
little
weight
to
Defendant’s argument in favor of removal to federal court.
Consequently, the entirety of Defendant’s argument rests upon
cited cases where plaintiffs were awarded in excess of the $75,000
threshold.
The Court finds this argument to be deficient.
A
removing defendant does not meet the burden of proving the amount
in
controversy
where
it
offers
nothing
more
than
conclusory
allegations without setting forth the underlying facts supporting
such an assertion.
Id.
Defendant, in analogizing the facts of
the instant case loosely to those in the cases cited within its
Notice of Removal, sets forth conclusory allegations that the
instant case may exceed the amount in controversy requirement.
The Court finds that Defendant has not plausibly alleged that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) is GRANTED.
5
2.
The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lee County,
Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Opinion and Order
to the Clerk of that Court.
The Clerk is further directed to
terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close this case.
3.
The Court retains jurisdiction to determine fees and
costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Plaintiff may file a motion
for attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of the improper
removal within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __17th_ day of
June, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?