Chase v. Hess Retail Operations, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER: The Court remands this action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), after finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. After remand has been effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/14/2015. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DESERY CHASE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-1712-T-33JSS

HESS RETAIL OPERATIONS LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
Defendant Hess Retail Operations LLC’s Memorandum of Law
Regarding

Removal

to

Federal

Court

based

on

Plaintiff’s

Responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Doc. # 11),
filed on September 11, 2015, is before the Court.

For the

reasons that follow, the Court remands this action to state
court.
I.

Background
On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff Desery Chase was injured in a

slip and fall accident at a Hess gas station in Clearwater,
Florida. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 7). Chase filed a negligence action
against Hess in state court on October 29, 2014 (Doc. # 1-5 at
4) and filed an Amended Complaint on March 27, 2015. (Doc. #
2).

Hess removed the action to this Court on the basis of

complete

diversity

of

citizenship

on

July

22,

2015,

in

response to Chase’s responses to requests for admissions.
(Doc. # 1). As characterized by Hess: Plaintiff denied in her

Response to Defendant’s Request for Admissions (1) that her
damages and expenses do not exceed $75,000; (2) that the total
value of her claims does not exceed $75,000; and (3) that she
would consent to remittitur if the verdict exceeds $75,000.
(Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 5-7).

After the removal of the case, this

Court directed Hess to supplement the record regarding the
amount in controversy, and Hess has done so.

However, as

explained in greater detail below, the information Hess has
supplied does not convince the Court that the jurisdictional
threshold for removal has been satisfied and accordingly, the
Court remands this case.
II.

Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant can remove an action

to a United States District Court if that court has original
jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). United
States District Courts have original jurisdiction over all
civil actions between parties of diverse citizenship where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
In Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316,
1319-20 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit held that if
the requisite jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent
from the complaint (as is the case here), the district court
should look to the notice of removal and may require the
2

defendant to submit evidence supporting its claim.
"A conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that
the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth
the

underlying

facts

supporting

such

an

assertion,

insufficient to meet the defendant's burden."
it

is

the

removing

defendant's

burden

Id.

to

is

Further,

show

by

a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional amount.

"Any doubts about the

propriety of federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor
of remand to state court.”

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v.

Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008).
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).
III. Analysis
Neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal provide
any

substantive

sustained.

discussion

of

the

actual

damages

Chase

Absent from the Court’s file are any medical

reports or other evidence bearing on the nature and extent of
Chase’s injury. Instead, Hess’s sole basis for the removal of
3

this slip and fall case is Chase’s responses to Requests for
Admissions regarding the extent of Chase’s damages.

Although

Hess

complete

has

made

an

adequate

showing

concerning

diversity of citizenship between the parties, the Notice of
Removal and supplemental briefing does not satisfy the Court
that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied.
A number of courts have determined that a plaintiff’s
discovery responses concerning the amount in controversy are
not sufficient to support removal of a case to federal court.
See, e.g., Bruzon-Pena v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., No. 8:09cv-2170-T-33EAJ, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103084 (M.D. Fla. July
14, 2010)(remanding breach of insurance contract case when
removal was predicated upon plaintiff’s failure to commit to
an amount in controversy during discovery); Mathews v. GEICO,
No. 8:13-cv-3053-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2013)(remanding
bad faith insurance case when removal was predicated upon
plaintiff’s

discovery

responses);

MacDonald

v.

Circle

K

Stores, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-1825-Orl-22DAB, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3117 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2009)(remanding slip-and-fall
case when removal was based on plaintiff’s responses to
requests for admissions and interrogatory answers regarding
the

amount

in

controversy

and

noting

that

responses

to

interrogatories “merely establish the possibility - not a
4

probability
$75,000.").

-

that

the

Plaintiff’s

damages

might

exceed

The Court reaches the same conclusion in this

case. Chase’s denial that her “damages and expenses currently
sought .. . . do[] not exceed $75,000.00," among other
denials, is too speculative to warrant removal. (Doc. # 11-1).
As set forth in Williams, 269 F.3d at 1320, a plaintiff’s
refusal to stipulate that her claims do not exceed $75,000.00
is inadequate to satisfy the removing defendant’s burden.
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.”

Id.

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.

Hess 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:
5

(1)

The Court remands this action to state court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), after finding that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.

(2)

This case is REMANDED to state court.

After remand has

been effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th
day of September, 2015.

Copies to: All Counsel of Record

6