Santilli v. Van Erp et al

Filing 5

ORDER: This case is REMANDED to the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/23/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RUGGERO SANTILLI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1475-T-33AAS

PEPIJN VAN ERP, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the
reasons below, this action is remanded to the Sixth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida.
Discussion
Plaintiff Ruggero Santilli filed his Complaint in state
court on April 5, 2017. (Doc. # 2). Defendant Pepijn van Erp
then

removed

the

action

to

this

Court,

predicating

jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. # 1).
When, as here, jurisdiction is premised on diversity of
citizenship, § 1332 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, 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 alleges an unspecified amount in damages.
(Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1). In his notice of removal, Erp solely relies
on Santilli’s responses to requests for admission whereby
Santilli denied he was seeking $75,000 or less and admitted
the total damages he was seeking were greater than $75,000.
(Doc. # 1-2 at ¶¶ 1, 2). However, “[a] number of courts have
determined that a plaintiff’s discovery responses concerning
the amount in controversy are not sufficient to support
removal of a case to federal court.” Chase v. Hess Retail
Operations LLC, No. 8:15-cv-1712-T-33JSS, 2015 WL 5356185, at
* 2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (citations omitted). As noted
in Eckert v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
a plaintiff’s mere concession that the amount-incontroversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient because
“[j]urisdictional objections cannot be forfeited or
waived.” . . . Allowing the parties to invoke
jurisdiction by merely claiming in concert that the
amount-in-controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
requirement is “tantamount to allowing the parties
to consent to removal jurisdiction.” . . . Thus,
“[a]lthough a plaintiff may stipulate to an amount

2 

less than the jurisdictional minimum
removal, the converse is not true.”

to

avoid

No. 8:13-cv-2599-T-23EAJ, 2013 WL 5673511, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 17, 2013) (citations omitted); see also Avramides v.
Genesis Eldercare Rehab. Servs., LLC, No. 8:17-cv-155-T33JSS, 2017 WL 359884, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2017)
(citations

omitted).

Because

Erp

relies

solely

on

bare

admissions, he has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence

that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

the

jurisdictional threshold.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

This case is REMANDED to the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in
and for Pinellas County, Florida, for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

23rd day of June, 2017.

3