Pyne v. IMG College, LLC

Filing 45

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff's requested relief would result in an award greater than $75,000, and the parties are diverse in citizenship. Accordingly, Defendants met their burden for diversity jurisdiction, and this Court retains jurisdiction. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 10/14/2014. (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JAMES M. PYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-340-T-17EAJ

IMG COLLEGE, LLC, and
IMG WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, (Doc. # 22),
filed May 5, 2014, and Defendants’ Response in Opposition, (Doc. # 31), filed May 19,
2014. For the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiffs Motion is hereby DENIED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award in the
civil division of Hillsborough County, Florida. (Doc. # 2). Plaintiff originally filed a lawsuit
on December 14, 2011, and on September 14, 2012, the Honorable Christopher Sabella
entered “a Stipulated Order Compelling Arbitration, Dismissing Complaint Without
Prejudice and Reserving Limited Jurisdiction.” (Doc. # 2). On January 21, 2014, an
arbitration panel issued an arbitration award to Plaintiff against Defendants. (Doc. # 2).
In his Petition, Plaintiff sought confirmation of that arbitration award, as well as costs
incurred. (Doc. # 2). On February 7, 2014, Defendants paid Plaintiff the total amount of
the arbitration award, but withheld “required federal taxes.” (Doc. # 31). That same day
Plaintiff expressed opposition to the tax withholding and sent a letter to Defendants

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-340-T-17EAJ

concerning same. (Doc. # 22). On February 10, 2014, Defendants removed the case to
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, and 1446(b). (Doc. # 1).
On April 2, 2014, attorneys for both parties appeared before Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Jenkins, and advised the Court on their positions regarding jurisdiction, the
relief sought, and opposition thereto. (Doc. # 18). The Court set a 30-day deadline, which
expired May 5, 2014. ]d. While counsel for Plaintiff represented jurisdiction was not
disputed and the amount in controversy “well exceeds $75,000,” (Doc. # 31), counsel for
Plaintiff now alleges the Court lacks diversity and subject matter jurisdiction, and seeks
remand to state court. (Doc. # 23). Defendants oppose this contention, and argue they
have met their burden for removal. (Doc. # 31).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal law authorizes the removal to federal court of “any civil action brought in
a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”
U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Court’s original jurisdiction in this case is premised on diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which authorizes federal jurisdiction over
suits between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
The party seeking removal carries the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
Diaz v. Sheppard. 85 F.3d 1502,1505 (11th Cir. 1996). Where damages are not specified
in the complaint, such as in this case, “the removing party bears the burden of establishing
the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence.” Lowerv v. Ala. Power Co..
483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). The preponderance of the evidence standard is
‘“[a] superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all

2

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-340-T-17EAJ

reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the
issue rather than the other. ]d. (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1220 (8th ed. 2004)). The
preponderance of the evidence standard does not require a removing party to “prove the
amount in controversy beyond all doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it.” Pretka v.
Kolter Citv Plaza. II. Inc.. 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010)).
When determining if an unspecified amount in controversy is met, the Court may
look beyond the complaint to “evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time
the case was removed.” id. Additionally, the Court may make “reasonable deductions,
reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations” to determine if the amount in
controversy is met. ]d.

Deductions combined with factual allegations supported by

evidence are not speculative.

Id.

Further, courts may use judicial “experience and

common sense in determining” the amount in controversy.

Roe v. Michelin North

America. Inc.. 613 F. 3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir. 2010). However, because the removal
statutes are strictly construed against removal, all doubts about removal must resolve in
favor of remand. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co.. 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994).
DISCUSSION
Diversity of citizenship between the parties is not disputed. The issue before the
Court for diversity jurisdiction is whether the Defendants have demonstrated that the
amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the statutory $75,000 threshold.
Plaintiff contends IMG bears the burden of proving removal was proper, and that
this determination is “based on the plaintiff’s pleadings at the time of removal.” (Doc. #
23) (citing Crowe v. Coleman. 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff argues
based on the pleadings and a lack of specified damages therein, Defendants cannot meet

3

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-340-T-17EAJ

their burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory $75,000
requirement. (Doc. # 23). Defendants oppose this argument, and urge the Court to look
beyond the petition to other pleadings and consider certain binding admissions made
through correspondence, motions, and representations to the Court. (Doc. # 31).
When pleadings are silent or do not specify the amount in controversy, the Court
may look beyond the pleadings. Pretka. 608 F.3d at 754. The removing party bears the
responsibility to demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.” McGee v. Sentinel Offender Serv’s. LLC.
719 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Williams v. Best Buv Co.. 269 F.3d 1316,
1319 (11th Cir. 2001)). Defendants may rely on affidavits, declarations, and “a wide range
of evidence in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of removal.” Pretka. 608
F.3d at 755 (citations omitted). The value of injunctive relief for amount in controversy
purposes is “the monetary value of the object of the litigation that would flow to [plaintiff]
if the injunction were granted.” Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car. 279 F.3d 967, 973 (11th
Cir. 2002) (citing Ericsson GE Mobile Comm.. Inc. v. Motorola Comm. & Elecs.. Inc.. 120
F.3d 216, 218 (11th Cir. 1997)).
Defendants have satisfied their burden. Defendants filed an affidavit from Louis
W. Doherty, their Senior Vice President and General Counsel, attesting to the bases for
withholdings in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and IRS regulations. (Doc.
#1-1). Mr. Doherty further affirmed that although the award amount was confidential, the
withholdings exceeded $75,000.

(Doc. # 1-1).

Moreover, Defendants filed

correspondences between counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants addressing the dispute.
(Doc. # 1-1).

From these filings, as well as Plaintiffs counsel’s representations and

4

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-340-T-17EAJ

admissions to Magistrate Judge Jenkins that the amount in controversy “well exceeds”
the $75,000 threshold, the amount Defendants withheld appears to unquestionably
exceed $75,000.

Finally, it is undisputed that the object of Plaintiffs litigation is

confirmation and enforcement of the full arbitration award.

This confirmation and

enforcement would result in Plaintiff recovering the withholdings, which exceed $75,000.
While Plaintiff did not specifically request monetary damages, the requested confirmation
and enforcement—essentially injunctive or declaratory relief—would result in the
recovery of funds exceeding $75,000. Therefore, this Court finds Defendants have met
their burden for removal, and this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity and amount in
controversy.

As diversity jurisdiction is satisfied, the Court declines to address the

remaining jurisdictional arguments. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
2014.

5

f October,