Lutz v. State Farm Mutual Autombile Insurance Company

Filing 6

ORDER: Plaintiff John Lutz's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 5 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. After remand has been effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE THE CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/1/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOHN LUTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-2821-T-33MAP

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This

cause

comes

before

the

Court

pursuant

to

Plaintiff John Lutz’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 5), which was
filed on November 29, 2017.

The Court grants the Motion and

remands this action to s t a t e c o u r t pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

1447(c)

because

this

Court

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction.
I.

Background

On January 20, 2017, Lutz was involved in a car crash
with

an

“uninsured/underinsured

Florida. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 4).

motorist”

in

Clearwater,

Lutz was insured by Defendant

State Farm at the time of the accident under Policy number
E17670559. (Id. at ¶ 9).

On October 13, 2017,

Lutz filed a

Complaint against State Farm in state court “for damages
that exceed fifteen thousand $15,000 dollars.” (Id. at ¶ 1).

Lutz describes his injuries in the Complaint as “serious
and permanent injuries or his head, neck, body, back and
legs and aggravat[ion] of a pre-existing condition.” (Id. at
¶ 6).

The Complaint also indicates that Lutz has incurred

medical expenses and has sustained a loss of earnings. (Id.
at ¶ 8).
State Farm removed the case on November 22, 2017, on
the basis of complete diversity of citizenship. (Doc. # 1).
In the Notice of Removal, State Farm indicates that it is
an Illinois insurance company organized under the laws of
the State of Illinois, and is thus a citizen of Illinois.
(Id. at ¶ 14).

The Notice of Removal also states that Lutz

“is a citizen of the State of Florida.” (Id. at ¶ 15).
As to the amount in controversy, State Farm alleges in
a conclusory manner that “this is a civil action in which
the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

the

sum

of

$75,000

exclusive of interest and costs.” (Id. at ¶ 16). State Farm
highlights that the relevant insurance policy’s limits are
$100,000, that Lutz “sustained a comminuted fracture of the
right

calcaneus,”

contemplated,

and

that

a

$50,000

that

Lutz

has

medical
incurred

medical bills. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 10, 12).

2

procedure

is

$34,854.30

in

At this juncture,

Lutz has filed a Motion to Remand arguing that this Court
should reject State Farm’s assertions regarding the amount
in controversy.
II.
When

Analysis
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 (11th Cir. 2001). Further, if “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).
Lutz

does

not

make

a

specified

claim

for

damages.

(Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1) (generally alleging damages exceeding
$15,000). In the Motion to Remand, Lutz suggests that the
only evidence of the amount in controversy is two competing
letters of counsel.

Lutz’s demand letter is discussed in

the Notice of Removal; however, it is not before the Court.
3

The Court gathers that Lutz demands an amount greater than
the jurisdictional minimum, but the medical bills described
in the demand letter amount to $34,854.30, which is far
less than the amount required for removal.

And, Lutz has

filed State Farm’s September 20, 2017, letter authored in
response to the presuit demand letter in which State Farm
offered to settle the case for $11,753.51. (Doc. # 5-1).
The letters of counsel do not convince the Court that
the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. See Standridge v.
Wal-Mart

Stores,

945

F.

Supp.

252,

256

(N.D.

Ga.

1996)(holding that a pre-suit demand letter was “nothing
more than posturing by plaintiff’s counsel for settlement
purposes and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of
the damages plaintiff is seeking”).
The Court agrees with Lutz that State Farm has not met
its burden as to the amount in controversy requirement for
the removal of this case. The Court is aware that “district
courts

are

permitted

to

make

reasonable

deductions

and

reasonable inferences and need not suspend reality or shelve
common sense in determining whether the face of a complaint
establishes

the

jurisdictional

amount.”

Keogh

v.

Clarke

Envtl. Mosquito Mgmt., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-2874-T-30EAJ, 2013
U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

20282,

at
4

*4-5

(M.D.

Fla.

Jan.

17,

2013)(internal citations omitted). But, overall, the record
is devoid of evidence to suggest that Lutz’s damages from
this

incident

exceed

the

$75,000

amount

in

controversy

threshold.
The Court recognizes that Lutz has alleged “serious and
permanent injuries,” and “significant and permanent loss of
bodily function, or permanent injury within a reasonable
degree

of

medical

disfigurement,

or

probability
significant

other
and

than

permanent

disfigurement.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 6-7).

scarring

or

scarring

or

However, the Court

has not been provided with sufficiently specific information
about these broad categories of damages to find that the
amount in controversy has been met. And, Lutz has described
these categories of damages in such a vague and inexact
manner that the Court would be required to engage in rank
speculation

to

ascribe

these

damages

with

any

monetary

value.
For instance, Lutz seeks redress for lost wages, but
does not provide any earnings records or state the nature of
his employment.

See Robinson v. Peck, No. 1:14-cv-1628-WSD,

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159198, at *11-12 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12,
2014)(granting motion to remand in slip and fall action
where plaintiff “allege[d] a generic scattershot list of
5

unspecified damages,” which included personal injury, pain
and suffering, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment

of

life,

impaired

ability

to

labor,

loss

of

earning capacity, incidental expenses, expenses for medical
treatment, future medical expenses and permanent injury.).
In a case such as this, where “plaintiff makes an
unspecified demand for damages in state court, a removing
defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the
. . . jurisdictional requirement.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am.
Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010).

As explained

above, State Farm falls short of meeting this burden.

The

Court, finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
remands this case to state court.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff John Lutz’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 5) is
GRANTED.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

(3)

After remand has been effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE THE
CASE.

6

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida,
this 1st day of December, 2017.

7