Disparti v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Filing
3
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 1/12/2017. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RENEE DISPARTI,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:17-cv-82-T-33TGW
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff
Renee Disparti originally initiated this action in state
court on November 28, 2016, seeking to recover uninsured
motorist benefits from Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company. (Doc. # 2). Thereafter, on January 10,
2017, Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). Relying on Plaintiff’s
demand letter and civil remedies notice, Defendant contends
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
“Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction
. . . .” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 126061 (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,
1319
unspecified,
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
demand letter and civil remedies notice to establish the
amount in controversy. While Plaintiff does demand the policy
limits, which exceeds $75,000, the documentation submitted in
connection
with
that
demand
shows
that
the
amount
in
controversy is only $66,658.17. Furthermore, AAA Abachman
Enterprises, Inc. v. Stanley Steemer International, Inc., 268
2
Fed.
Appx.
864
(11th
Cir.
2008),
does
not
support
the
contention that it is “well established that a demand letter
constitutes legally certain evidence that a plaintiff seeks
damages in excess of the jurisdictional requirement.” (Doc.
# 2 at ¶ 9). Rather, AAA Abachaman Enterprises stands for the
proposition that a district court did not clearly err in
finding the amount-in-controversy requirement was met where
(1) a plaintiff specifically alleged in its complaint that
the value of the dispute was “hundreds of thousands of
dollars,”
(2)
demanded
an
amount
consistent
with
that
allegation, and (3) failed to present evidence showing the
value was below $75,000 in its motion to remand. Id. at 86667 (alterations omitted).
While a demand letter may be considered by a court in
determining whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has
been satisfied, it is not dispositive. Martins v. Empire
Indem. Ins. Co., No. 08-60004-CIV, 2008 WL 783762, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 21, 2008) (stating, “[i]n determining the amount in
controversy in the insurance context, numerous courts have
held that it is the value of the claim not the value of the
underlying
policy,
that
determines
the
amount
in
controversy”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation
omitted); see also Lamb v. State Farm Fire Mut. Auto. Ins.
3
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)); Standridge v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp.
252, 256 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (noting pre-suit demand letter was
“nothing
more
settlement
than
posturing
purposes
and
by
cannot
plaintiff’s
be
considered
counsel
a
for
reliable
indicator of the damages plaintiff is seeking”). If the demand
letter is mere puffery or an attempt at posturing, “it is
insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy meets or exceeds $75,000.” Jenkins
v. Myers, No. 8:16-cv-344-T-17EAJ, 2016 WL 4059249, at *4
(M.D. Fla. July 27, 2016). Likewise, the “mere allegation[]
of severe injuries [is] insufficient to establish the amount
in controversy.” Green v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 3:11-cv922-J-37TEM, 2011 WL 4947499, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2011)
(citing Ransom v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 176,
178 (M.D. Ga. 1996)).
The Court has reviewed the notice of removal and the
documentation submitted in support of thereof. The Court
finds
the
constitute
demand
mere
letter
puffery
and
or
civil
posturing.
remedies
To
be
notice
sure,
to
when
calculated, the amount of the claim, as determined by the
4
evidence submitted by Defendant in support of removal, is
less than the jurisdictional threshold. Because Defendant has
failed to carry its burden of establishing the jurisdictional
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
12th day of January, 2017.
5
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?