Wood v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Filing 5

ORDER: This action is REMANDED to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Once remand is effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/27/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TERRI D. WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-3477-T-33AAS

WAL-MART STORES, EAST, LP,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff
Terri D. Wood originally initiated this slip-and-fall action
in state court on September 30, 2016. Thereafter, on October
24,

2016,

Defendant

Wal-Mart

Stores,

East,

LP,

served

Plaintiff with a request for admissions, asking Plaintiff to
admit,

among

other

things,

that

“Plaintiff

is

alleging

damages in excess of $75,000.00.” (Doc. # 1-1 at 18-19). On
November 14, 2016, Plaintiff admitted alleging damages in
excess of $75,000. (Id. at 21-22). Relying on Plaintiff’s
admission, Defendant removed to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction on December 23, 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 48).
“Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction
. . . .” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-

61 (11th Cir. 2000). As such, “[a] federal court not only has
the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into
jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does
not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc.,
760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
When

jurisdiction

citizenship,

28

is

U.S.C.

§

premised
1332(a)

upon

diversity

requires,

among

of

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,

unspecified,

1319
the

(11th

Cir.

removing

2001).

party

When

bears

“damages

the

burden

are
of

establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208
(11th Cir. 2007).
In this case, Defendant relies solely upon Plaintiff’s
admission that Plaintiff is alleging damages in excess of
$75,000

to

invoke

this

Court’s

diversity

jurisdiction.

“However, a plaintiff’s mere concession that the amount-incontroversy

exceeds

$75,000

2 

is

insufficient

because

‘[j]urisdictional objections cannot be forfeited or waived.’”
Eckert v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 8:13-cv-2599-T-23EAJ,
2013 WL 5673511, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2013) (citation
omitted) (remanding removed action where defendant solely
relied on plaintiff’s admission to amount in controversy);
see also MacDonald v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. 6:08–cv–
1825–Orl–22DAB, 2009 WL 113377 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2009)
(remanding slip-and-fall case where removal was based on
plaintiff’s

responses

to

requests

for

admissions

and

interrogatory answers regarding the amount in controversy).
Because

Defendant

establishing

the

has

failed

to

jurisdictional

carry

its

burden

of

amount-in-controversy

threshold, this action is remanded for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
This action is REMANDED to state court for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Once remand is effected, the
Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
27th day of December, 2016.

3