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
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?