Price et al v. Federal Express Corporation et al

Filing 4

ORDER: The action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Once remanded is effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/11/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STELLA PRICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1075-T-33TBM

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April
17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants in
state court for damages resulting from an auto accident. (Doc.
# 2). Thereafter, Defendants removed the action to this Court
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). For the
reasons below, the action is remanded.
Discussion
When

jurisdiction

is

premised

on

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

jurisdictional

amount

of
is

interest
not

and

costs.”

facially

apparent

If
from

“the
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

are

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 alleges an unspecified amount in damages.
(Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1). In their Notice of Removal, Defendants
rely on the various types of damages alleged and the fact
that Plaintiffs made a pre-suit demand for $250,000. (Doc. #
1 at ¶¶ 16-17). While the Complaint does contain a litany of
types of damages, e.g. pain and suffering, those allegations
are simply too nebulous to support finding the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. To be sure, there are no facts
in the record demonstrating how Plaintiffs’ claimed types of
damages equal an amount above the jurisdictional threshold.
See Green v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 3:11-cv-922-J-37TEM,
2011 WL 4947499, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2011) (“mere
allegation[]

of

severe

injuries

[is]

insufficient

to

establish the amount in controversy”) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, although the pre-suit demand letter asks
for $250,000, the letter indicates that, as of the date it
was

prepared,

only

$25,867.20

2 

in

medical

expenses

were

incurred. (Doc. # 1-7 at 11). After reviewing the demand
letter, the Court determines the demand is mere puffery or
posturing. And when a pre-suit demand is “nothing more than
posturing by plaintiff’s counsel for settlement purposes,” it
“cannot be considered a reliable indicator of the damages
plaintiff is seeking.” Standridge v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.,
945 F. Supp. 252, 256 (N.D. Ga. 1996). Because the demand
letter is mere 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-344T-17EAJ, 2016 WL 4059249, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2016).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough
County,

Florida,

for

lack

of

subject-matter

jurisdiction.
(2)

Once remanded is effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE this
case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

11th day of May, 2017.

3