Clements v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Filing 12

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to remand this case as directed in the Order and, thereafter, close this case. The Clerk is further directed to cancel any previously scheduled deadlines and hearings. The Case Management Hearing set for December 23, 2015, is cancelled. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/17/2015. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHAEL CLEMENTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-2781-T-33EAJ

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court sua sponte (Doc. # 9),
and upon consideration of Plaintiff Michael Clements’ Motion
to Remand filed on December 9, 2015. (Doc. # 10). Defendant
National

Union

Fire

Insurance

Company

of

Pittsburgh

Pennsylvania filed a response to both on December 16, 2015.
(Doc. # 11). For the reasons that follow, this case is
remanded to the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco
County, Florida.
Discussion
This action was removed to this Court from the Sixth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida on December
3, 2015, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1).
When jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship,

1 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires among other things that “the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.” If “the jurisdictional
amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court
should look to the notice of removal and may require evidence
relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case
was removed.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319
(11th Cir. 2001). When “damages are unspecified, the removing
party bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional
amount by a preponderance of the evidence.” Lowery v. Ala.
Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007).
The

Complaint

does

not

state

a

specified

claim

to

damages. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1) (stating “[t]his is an action for
damages that exceeds Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars,
exclusive of costs and interest”). In its Notice of Removal
(Doc. # 1), National Union relies on a pre-suit demand letter
and the affidavit of its counsel as establishing that the
amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional
threshold. (Id. at ¶ 5). The affidavit, however, merely states
in

pertinent

part

that

Clements’

pre-suit

demand

letter

“contains a specific dollar amount of damages sought by Mr.
Clements, which is in excess of $75,000.” (Doc. # 4 at ¶ 9).

2 

Thereafter, on December 9, 2015, the Court entered an
Order

noting

that

it

was

not

convinced

the

amount-in-

controversy requirement has been satisfied. (Doc. # 9). In
particular, the Court’s December 9, 2015, Order noted that
demand letters do not automatically establish the amount in
controversy. (Id.) (citing Lamb v. State Farm Fire Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., No.3:10-cv-615-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P.,
No. 8:10-cv-1582-T-23EAJ, 2010 WL 2889218, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
July 21, 2010)). Clements then filed his own Motion to Remand.
(Doc. # 10). In response, National Union filed a response in
opposition. (Doc. # 11).
National Union argues that the pre-suit demand letter,
which demands payment of the policy’s limits in the amount of
$125,000.00,

in

combination

with

the

attached

email

communications between counsel for Clements and National
Union demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. (Id. at 5). The Court disagrees. A review of the
pre-suit demand letter shows the letter to be general in
nature and mere puffery or posturing because it does not
detail facts to support Clements’ demand. In addition, the
email communications between Clements’ counsel and counsel
for National Union show nothing more than that Clements’

3 

counsel took an aggressive stance during negotiations. (Doc.
# 11-2). To be sure, the emails do not discuss specific
amounts claimed for particular injuries. (Id.).
In sum, the record does not show by a preponderance of
the

evidence

that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

$75,000.00. The Complaint alleges a nonspecific amount, the
pre-suit demand letter is mere posturing because it does not
provide

details

regarding

expenses,

and

the

email

communications between counsel reflect only that Clements’
counsel took an aggressive stance during negotiations to
reach a settlement. As such, the Court determines National
Union

has

not

sufficiently

demonstrated

that

the

jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold has not been
satisfied. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Sixth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Michael Clements Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10) is GRANTED.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to the Sixth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida.

(3)

The Case Management Hearing set for December 23, 2015,
is cancelled.

4 

(4)

The

Clerk

previously

is

further

scheduled

directed

deadlines

to

terminate

any

and

hearings,

and

thereafter CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
17th day of December, 2015.

5