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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?