De Leon v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER: This case is REMANDED to state court. After remand has been effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/18/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEBORAH DE LEON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-930-T-33TGW

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc. removed this slipand-fall

case

requirements

on

for

April
this

12,

Court’s

2013,

asserting

exercise

of

citizenship jurisdiction have been satisfied.

that

diversity

the
of

As discussed

below, the Court sua sponte determines that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action and remands this case to
state court.
I.

Legal Standard
Before delving into the merits of any case, this Court

must determine “whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Indeed, “it is well
settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405,
410 (11th Cir. 1999). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot

proceed at all in any cause.” Id.
In removed cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) specifies, “If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”

Removal statutes are strictly construed against

removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Co. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108
(1941).

Any doubt as to propriety of removal should be

resolved in favor of remand to state court.

Butler v. Polk,

592 F.2d 1293, 1296 (5th Cir. 1979).
II.

Discussion
In

the

Notice

of

Removal,

Ross

predicates

federal

jurisdiction on the diversity provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“For federal diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties
must be completely diverse . . . and the amount in controversy
must

exceed

$75,000.”

Osting-Schwinn,

613

Underwriters

F.3d

1079,

at

1085

Lloyd’s

(11th

London

Cir.

v.

2010).

Although Ross has made an adequate showing concerning complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties, the Notice of
Removal does not satisfy the Court that the jurisdictional
amount has been satisfied.1

Likewise, the Complaint sheds

1

In the Notice of Removal, Ross specifies that De Leon
“is a citizen of Florida and [Ross] is a California
Corporation with its principal place of business . . . [in]
Pleasanton, CA.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 11).
2

little light on the amount in controversy.
In her Complaint, De Leon maintains, “This is an action
for

damages

which

exceed

the

sum

of

($15,000.00) DOLLARS.” (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1).

FIFTEEN

THOUSAND

De Leon asserts

that as a result of Ross’s alleged negligence, she suffered:
bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering,
disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the
enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization,
medical and/or nursing care and treatment, loss of
earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and
aggravation of a previously existing condition.
The losses are either permanent in nature or
continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer the losses
in the future. The injury consists in whole or in
part of significant and permanent loss of an
important bodily function, and a permanent injury
within a reasonable degree of medical probability,
and/or
significant
permanent
scarring
or
disfigurement.
(Id. at ¶ 6).
In the Notice of Removal, Ross states in a conclusory
manner that “based on the allegations in the Complaint, the
amount

in

controversy

exceeds

$75,000.00,

interest and costs.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 10).

exclusive

of

In an attempt to

bolster its deficient jurisdictional showing, Ross indicates:
“Most importantly, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to execute a
proposed joint stipulation on alleged damages and confirmed
same via email wherein he advised that his client did not wish
him to agree to limiting her damages in any way.” (Id.).

3

However, as explained in Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269
F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001), a plaintiff’s refusal to
stipulate

that

her

claims

do

not

exceed

$75,000.00

inadequate to satisfy the removing defendant’s burden.

is

That

court explained: “[t]here are several reasons why a plaintiff
would not so stipulate, and a refusal to stipulate standing
alone does not satisfy [defendant’s] burden of proof on the
jurisdictional issue.”
In a case such as this, where “plaintiff makes an
unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing
defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the
. . . jurisdictional requirement.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am.
Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010).
short of meeting this burden.

Ross falls well

The Court, finding that it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, remands this case to state
court.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
This case is REMANDED to state court.

After remand has

been effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

4

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 18th
day of April, 2013.

Copies to:
All Counsel and parties of record

5