Mills v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER remanding (with directions to the Clerk of Court). Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/6/2025. (JPA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ANTONIO MILLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:25-cv-107-MMH-MCR

HOME DEPOT USA, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Jurisdictional
Statement (Doc. 13; Jurisdictional Response), filed on February 17, 2025. On
February 3, 2025, Defendant filed a notice removing this case from the Fourth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Clay County, Florida. See Notice of Removal
(Doc. 1; Notice). In the Notice, Defendant invoked the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Notice at 2. On February 12,
2025, the Court entered a Jurisdictional Order (Doc. 9) inquiring into its subject
matter jurisdiction. In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court found that Defendant
had failed “to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Jurisdictional Order at 5.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to provide “sufficient information so
that it can determine whether the amount in controversy is met such that it has

diversity jurisdiction over this action.” Id. at 7. In response to the Jurisdictional
Order, Defendant filed its Jurisdictional Response. Upon review of the
Jurisdictional Response, and the exhibits attached to it, the Court remains
unable to conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. This
is so because Defendant again fails to allege facts sufficient to plausibly
demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, this
case is due to be remanded to the state court in which it was filed. 1
“In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three
types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory
grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3)
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading,
Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). In cases where, as here, the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction is invoked, see Notice at 2, the value of a plaintiff’s claim
must exceed the amount-in-controversy threshold of $75,000. See Federated
Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003). A
plaintiff satisfies this requirement if he claims “a sufficient sum in good faith.”
Id. at 807 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288

In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court also found that Defendant had failed to
“adequately allege the citizenship of” Antonio Mills. See Jurisdictional Order at 2. Defendant
failed to rectify this deficiency in the Jurisdictional Response, and continues to allege that
Mills is a “natural person residing” in Florida. See Jurisdictional Response at 1. Because
Defendant has failed to adequately allege that complete diversity exists under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), remand is warranted on this basis as well.
1

-2-

(1938)). And generally, a court can dismiss for failure to satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement “only if it is convinced ‘to a legal certainty’ that the
claims of the plaintiff in question will not exceed $75,000 (the current
jurisdictional threshold).” See McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 5
F.4th 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 2021).
Significant to this case, however, “the Red Cab Co. ‘legal certainty’ test
gives way” where diversity jurisdiction is invoked based on a claim for
indeterminate, unspecified damages. See McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 807;
see also McIntosh, 5 F.4th at 1312; Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC, 907 F.3d
1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2018); Doane v. Tele Circuit Network Corp., 852 F. App’x
404, 406 (11th Cir. 2021); Bradley v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 224 F. App’x 893, 895
(11th Cir. 2007). 2 Damages are indeterminate where a plaintiff makes “no
effort to quantify” the damages he seeks. See Doane, 852 F. App’x 407; see also
McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 808 (explaining that the damages sought were
indeterminate because plaintiff “did not and has not placed any dollar amount
on the various damages it is seeking under its bad faith claim”). Notably,
establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
requires more than a general allegation that damages exceed $75,000. See

2 The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent; however, they

may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point. See
McNamara v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 2022); see generally
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding
precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).

-3-

Fastcase, 907 F.3d at 1339, 1343; Doane, 852 F. App’x at 407; Bradley, 224 F.
App’x at 895. Instead, where damages are indeterminate, “the party seeking to
invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets the
jurisdictional minimum.” See McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 807. “The
additional requirement is ‘warranted because there is simply no estimate of
damages to which a court may defer.’” See Fastcase, 907 F.3d at 1342 (citation
omitted). And, “‘[a] conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the
jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts
supporting such an assertion, is insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden.’”
See Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319–20 (11th Cir. 2001)); see
also Dibble v. Avrich, No. 14-CIV-61264, 2014 WL 5305468, at *4–6 (S.D. Fla.
Oct. 15, 2014).3
Of course, in some cases, “it may be ‘facially apparent’ from the pleading
itself that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, even
when ‘the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages.’” See Roe v.
Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061–62 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pretka

3 The Court notes that although decisions of other district courts are not binding, they

may be cited as persuasive authority. See Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1310
(11th Cir. 2004) (noting that, “[a]lthough a district court would not be bound to follow any
other district court’s determination, the decision would have significant persuasive effects”).

-4-

v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010)); see also
McIntosh, 5 F.4th at 1312–1313 (finding that although damages were
unspecified, plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injuries and expenses which,
accepted as true, were “sufficient to plead damages that exceed the $75,000
amount-in-controversy

requirement”).

Additionally,

district

courts

are

permitted “to make ‘reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other
reasonable extrapolations’ from the pleadings to determine whether” the
amount in controversy is satisfied on the face of the complaint. Roe, 613 F.3d at
1061–62. Indeed, a court “need not ‘suspend reality or shelve common sense in
determining whether the face of a complaint . . . establishes the jurisdictional
amount.’” Id. (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 770). Nevertheless, the Court may
not speculate or guess as to the amount in controversy. See Pretka, 608 F.3d at
752.
Relevant here, Defendant, as the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction,
“bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists.” See Williams, 269
F.3d at 1319. In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., the Supreme Court
explained that a defendant’s notice of removal must include “a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”
See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). If the
plaintiff contests the allegation, or the court questions it, a defendant must then
present evidence establishing that the amount in controversy requirement is

-5-

met. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)); see also Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778
F.3d 909, 912 (11th Cir. 2014). In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court questioned
the sufficiency of Defendant’s allegations regarding the amount in controversy
and provided Defendant with an opportunity to present additional information
to make a showing that the value of Plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000.
Defendant has failed to do so.
In the Jurisdictional

Response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

settlement demand of $1,000,000 is evidence that the amount in controversy
has been met. See Jurisdictional Response at 2. However, as the Court noted in
its Jurisdictional Order, “an initial demand for settlement generally does not
serve as a sufficient basis for ascertaining the amount in controversy.” Erler v.
Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-cv-1090-Orl-40GJK, 2017 WL 10058597, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2017). Instead, “[o]nly where a demand provides specific
information and a reasonable assessment of the damages claimed is it possible
for the defendant to ascertain the amount in controversy and rely on the
demand to support removal.” Id. Although Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s
demand letter provides a reasonable assessment of the damages being claimed,
see Jurisdictional Response at 2, the demand letter fails to provide any
information which could justify Plaintiff’s demand for $1,000,000, see Plaintiff’s
Amended Notice of Service of Proposal for Settlement (Doc. 13-3). Thus, the
Court cannot find that Plaintiff’s settlement demand is supported by “specific

-6-

information and a reasonable assessment of the damages claimed[.]” Erler,
2017 WL 10058597 at *1. Additionally, Defendant has provided the Court with
a copy of Plaintiff’s medical records, see Defendant’s Exhibit B (Doc. 13-2), but
these records fail to quantify the cost of Plaintiff’s medical expenses. Therefore,
“the unsubstantiated cost of these hypothetical future medical expenses is too
speculative to include in the amount-in-controversy calculation.” Parham v.
Osmond, No. 8:19-cv-592-T-60SPF, 2019 WL 3822193, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15,
2019). In short, Defendant has failed to allege any facts which would plausibly
suggest that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to
satisfy its burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists. As such, this case
is due to be remanded.4
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Clay County, Florida, for further proceedings.
2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of
this order to the clerk of that court.

4 In state court, Defendant can engage in discovery pursuant to the relevant Florida

Rules of Civil Procedure. If through such discovery Defendant ascertains that the case is one
which is or has become removable, Defendant may consider filing another notice of removal,
if timely, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

-7-

3. The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to terminate any
pending motions and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 6th day of March,
2025.

Lc32
Copies to:
Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit
Counsel of Record

-8-