Hernandez v. United Continental Holdings, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 5/29/2014. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RAUL HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-519-T-17TGW

UNITED CONTINENTAL
HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant.
______________________/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 9 Motion to Remand
Dkt. 11 Opposition
This case was filed in Hillsborough County Circuit Court on October 4, 2013, and
was removed to this Court on March 3, 2014. This case was removed on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this case
became removable on February 27, 2014, when Defendant received the transcript of
Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant indicates that, in his deposition, Plaintiff testified to a
past loss of wages of $36,000, a loss of $5,000 for 2014, and a loss of capacity to earn
in the future given the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries, which Plaintiff estimated at $20,000
per year (not able to operate nursery business). Plaintiff provided medical bills in the
amount of $22,332.50 on February 17, 2014. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony of February 18, 2014, combined with Plaintiff’s amended answers
to interrogatories and amended response to Defendant’s request for production, was
the first indication of the clear factual showing necessary for removal under diversity
jurisdiction.

Case No. 8:14-CV-519-T-17TGW
I. Standard of Review

A defendant may remove a civil case from state to federal court if the federal
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a). For the Court to have original
jurisdiction over this personal injury claim, there must be complete diversity between the
parties, and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a).
The parties do not dispute complete diversity between the parties; the issue is whether
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As the party seeking removal, Defendant
United Continental Holdings, Inc. bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See
Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1207 (11th Cir. 2007). “Where, as here,
the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001). “Federal courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly, resolve all
doubts about jurisdiction in favor of remand, and employ a presumption in favor of
remand to state courts.” Total Fleet Solutions, Inc. v. Nat. Crime Ins. Bureau, 612
F.Supp.2d 1232, 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

If a case is not removable based on the initial pleading, a defendant may file a
notice of removal within thirty days of receipt “of a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one
which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b)(3). The standard set forth
in Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., supra, controls in cases in which removal is based on
a document received after initial service of the complaint. Under Lowery, “the court
considers the document received by the defendant from the plaintiff...and determines
whether that document and the notice of removal unambiguously establish federal
jurisdiction.” Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1213. “The district court has before it only the limited
universe of evidence available when the motion is filed-i.e., the notice of removal and
accompanying documents.” Id. at 1214.
2

Case No. 8:14-CV-519-T-17TGW
II. Discussion

Plaintiff Hernandez moves to remand because the amount in controversy is not
met, pursuant to Plaintiff’s binding stipulation (Dkt. 9, p. 8), and therefore this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s post-removal affidavit is a post-removal event
that has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction, which is determined as of the date of
removal; if jurisdiction is proper on the date of removal, subsequent events such as the
loss of the amount in controversy, do not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Leonard v.
Enter. Rent A Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002); Poore v. Am-Amicable Life Ins.
Co., 218 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000). Defendant points out that “[c]ourts cannot
divest themselves of jurisdiction, even if both parties later stipulate after removal that
the jurisdictional threshold has not been met.” White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
2013 WL 6061890 at *3 (M.D. Fla. 11/18/2013)(denying motion to remand). Defendant
argues that, given that the parties cannot later stipulate that the jurisdictional threshold
has not been met, Plaintiff cannot establish that the jurisdictional threshold is not met by
his affidavit filed subsequent to removal. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff does
not contest the propriety of the removal itself.

After consideration, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal and its
accompanying documents (Dkt. 1) unambiguously establish the required amount in
controversy, and Plaintiff’s affidavit has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction, which is
determined as of the date of removal, March 3, 2014. Accordingly, it is

3

Case No. 8:14-CV-519-T-17TGW
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is denied.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
29th day of May, 2014.

Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record

4