Hall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 12

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk of Court isdirected to remand this case to state court, to close the file and to terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/2/2014. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

TRACY SULLIVAN HALL,
Plaintiff,
V.
CASE NO. 8:14-CV-00802-EAK-EAJ
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant,
_________________________________/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 5), and Defendant’s
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7). For reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Tracy Sullivan Hall (“Plaintiff”), filed her complaint (Doc. 2) against State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”) in Pinellas County Circuit Court on
March 13, 2014 seeking to recover damages in excess of $15,000.00 and alleging insurance bad
faith. These claims arose out of an automobile accident involving Plaintiff and an uninsured
motorist. On April 4, 2014, the case was removed to federal court (Doc. 1) on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc.
5), and Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4). On April 25, 2014, Defendant filed a

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7), and on May 8, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11).
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. § 1441(a). For the Court to have original jurisdiction over this
claim, there must be complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy
exceeding $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The parties do not dispute complete diversity
between the parties; the issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. As the
party seeking removal, Defendant 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 Solution, Inc., v. Nat. Crime Ins.
Bureau, 612 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to remand because Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) fails to
establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional requirement and
that therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant’s Notice of Removal argues that the amount in controversy is $300,000.00
and, therefore, exceeds the jurisdictional requirement, relying exclusively on the Plaintiff’s presuit demand letter, dated December 27, 2013 (Doc. 1-2). Defendant asserts that the binding law

permits proof of the amount of controversy by use of a demand letter submitted by the plaintiff
(Doc. 7). To support this claim, Defendant relies on AAA Abachman Enter., Inc. v. Stanley
Steemer Intern., Inc., 268 Fed. Appx. 864 (11th Cir. 2008). However, Defendant confuses the
facts of the case.
In Abachman, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that “‘[h]undreds of thousands of dollars
have been paid . . . in reliance upon the exclusive license.’” Id. at 866 (brackets and ellipsis in
original). The complaint was supplemented by the plaintiff’s demand letter, which stated the
plaintiff would suffer “‘potentially millions of dollars of damages.’” Id. Although the defendant
also relied on the plaintiff’s demand letter, the defendant in Ahachman would have been able to
establish the amount in controversy from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint alone.
Abachman is distinguished from the present case because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges
damages in excess of $15,000.00 only, and, while the pre-suit demand letter seeks Plaintiff’s
policy limits of $300,000.00, it does not allege specific damages. Furthermore, Defendant’s
response to Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter extends an offer of $12,500.00 for Plaintiff’s injury
claim (Doc. 5-1), well below the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000.00.
Plaintiff directs the Court to Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., No. 8:10-cv-1582-T23EAJ, 2010 WL 2889218 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2010). In Piazza, the defendant relied entirely on
the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter seeking a $225,000.00 settlement to establish that the
amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 despite the fact that the plaintiff’s complaint sought
damages in excess of $15,000.00. Id. This Court remanded the case, holding that the defendant
had failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional
requirement. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has previously stated, “A settlement offer is
relevant but not determinative of the amount in controversy.” Id. (citing Burns v. Windsor Ins.
Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995). “Furthermore, a settlement demand provides only
marginal evidence of the amount in controversy because the ‘plaintiff’s letter is nothing more
than posturing by plaintiff’s counsel for settlement purposes and cannot be considered a reliable
indicator of the damages’ sought by the plaintiff.” Id. (citing Standridge v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 945 F.Supp. 252, 256–57 (N.D. Ga. 1996)). In the present case, Defendant provides only a
two and a half month-old demand letter to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. This demand letter may very well be an accurate representation of Plaintiff’s actual
damages, however the settlement demand is not determinative, and “[t]he defendant and the
court may not speculate about the amount in controversy.” Sibilia v. Makita Corp., 674
F.Supp.2d 1290, 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Without more, resolving all doubts about jurisdiction in
favor of remand and employing a presumption in favor of remand to state courts, Defendant has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the
$75,000.00 jurisdictional requirement.
Defendant has asked the Court that if it is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand,
to reserve the ruling in order to allow the Defendant an opportunity to take discovery (Doc. 7).
However, “[t]hough a defendant in a diversity case . . . may have no actual knowledge of the
value of the claims, the defendant is not excused from the duty to show by fact, and not mere
conclusory allegation, that federal jurisdiction exists.” Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d
1184, 1217 (11th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, “[t]he court should not reserve a ruling on a motion to
remand in order to allow the defendant to discover the potential factual basis of jurisdiction.” Id.

After consideration, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand; Defendant has failed
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. Because this Court is thereby without jurisdiction, we do not have the authority to
consider Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to remand this case to state court, to close the file and to terminate any pending motions
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of July, 2014.

Copies to: All Parties and Counsel of Record