Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida v. Progressive Express Insurance Company

Filing 44

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 11/12/2014. (JU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MARONDA HOMES, INC. OF
FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-1287-Orl-31TBS

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc.
12) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 27).
I.

Background
Plaintiff, Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida (“Maronda”), sued Defendant, Progressive

Express Insurance Company (“Progressive”), in state court 1 seeking a declaratory judgment
regarding Progressive’s duty to defend Maronda in an underlying tort action 2. Progressive filed a
Notice of Removal to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00. (Doc. 1). Maronda filed a Motion to Remand,
alleging that Progressive failed to show that the case satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. (Doc. 12).

1

Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida v. Progressive Express Insurance, Co., No. 14-CA6869-0 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. 2014).
2

Merida v. Chance et. al, No. 14-CA-545-AN (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. 2014).

II.

Remand Standard
In order to invoke a federal court’s diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and all parties to the action must
be completely diverse. Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph County, 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir.
1994). 3 Removal statutes are to be construed narrowly, with any uncertainties to be resolved in
favor of remand. Syngenta Crop. Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Burns v. Windsor
Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). The party seeking removal bears the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction. Sandifer P’ship, Ltd v. Dolgencorp, Inc., No. 304CV1238J12TEM,
2005 WL 2063790 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2005). Generally, “jurisdictional facts are assessed on the
basis of the plaintiff’s complaint as of the time of removal.” Burns, 31 F.3d at 1097, n. 13. However,
post-removal evidence may be considered if it is relevant to the time of the removal. Sierminski v.
Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000). When jurisdiction is based on a claim for
indeterminate damages, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets the
jurisdictional minimum. Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010). The
court may use its “judicial experience and common sense” to deduce, infer or extrapolate whether
the case meets jurisdictional requirements. Id. at 1062; Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d
744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010).
III.

Analysis
In its Complaint, Maronda seeks a declaration that Progressive has breached its duty to

defend Maronda in the underlying tort case, 4 and seeks to recover the attorney’s fees it incurred

3

The parties agree that the diversity of citizenship requirement is met.

4

It appears that Progressive has now settled that claim. (Doc. 42).

-2-

defending itself in that case, as well as the fees incurred in this case, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Section 86.011. (Doc. 2). Although the complaint here specifies only indeterminate damages,
sufficient to meet the state court’s jurisdictional threshold ($15,000.00), the Court has reviewed the
pleadings in this case and the underlying case and concludes that Defendant has met its burden of
establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 5 Furthermore, the affidavits
provided by Defendant (Doc. 27-3; Doc. 27-4) contain estimates for attorney’s fees in similar cases
which reasonably support an inference that the fees at issue in this declaratory action will amount
to greater than $75,000.00.
It is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on November 12, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

5

The Court notes in this regard the tendency of Maronda’s counsel to over-litigate issues.
(See, e.g., Doc. 44).

-3-