Otto et al v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 31

ORDER: The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida. The Clerk is further directed to terminate any previously scheduled deadlines and hearings, and thereafter close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/26/2016. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PAMELA OTTO and DOUG OTTO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1766-T-33MAP

TARGET CORPORATION, and
NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. 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 June 24, 2016, on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). When jurisdiction is
premised

upon

diversity

of

citizenship,

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,

1

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 which
exceeds Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of costs
and interest”). In its Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1), Defendant
Target Corporation noted the “Medical Bill Summary” Plaintiffs had
provided, showing that Plaintiff Pamela Otto had incurred past
medical expenses of $59,181.79 as of January 2015. (Id. at 3).
Target argued that these past medical expenses, combined with the
future medical expenses from physical therapy, claims for pain and
suffering, and loss of consortium, demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000.00. (Id.).
Thereafter, on July 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order
directing Target to provide additional evidence establishing, if
possible,

that

the

amount-in-controversy

requirement

has

been

satisfied by September 12, 2016. (Doc. # 25). However, Target did
not

provide

any

additional

information

by

the

deadline.

On

September 15, 2016, this Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc.
# 29), directing Target to show cause why the action should not be
remanded to state court.
2

Subsequently, Target filed a Response to the Order, describing
additional information regarding the amount-in-controversy that it
had uncovered during discovery. (Doc. # 30). Since the time of
removal, Mrs. Otto’s past medical expenses have increased to
$60,417.79. (Id. at 1). Furthermore, according to her Answers to
Interrogatories, her lost wages are between $3,360 and $4,800.
(Id.). Therefore, Target can demonstrate past damages between
$63,777.79 and $65,217.79. (Id. at 2). As for future damages, Mrs.
Otto

stated

that

she

continues

to

undergo

physical

therapy,

athletic training, and craniosacral therapy. (Id.). Additionally,
her doctor stated that in the “long-term [she] may require future
surgery in the form of arthroplasty.” (Id.).
Taken together, Target argues that the past medical damages
and lost wages to date, as well as the likelihood of future medical
expenses,

demonstrate

that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

$75,000.00. (Id. at 3). The Court disagrees. Whether Mrs. Otto
will require the additional surgery is uncertain, and no estimate
for the cost of that surgery is provided. Furthermore, it is
uncertain how long Mrs. Otto will continue physical therapy, making
it difficult to speculate her future medical expenses.
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 past medical expenses
and lost wages fall below the threshold, and the extent of future
3

medical

expenses

determines

is

Target

jurisdictional

highly

has

not

speculative.
sufficiently

amount-in-controversy

As

such,

the

demonstrated

threshold

has

Court

that
not

the
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)

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

(2)

The Clerk is further directed to terminate any previously
scheduled deadlines and hearings, and thereafter CLOSE THIS
CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day

of September, 2016.

4