Hausmann v. Caremark, LLC et al

Filing 4

ORDER: The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Clerk is further directed to terminate any previously scheduled deadlines and hearings, and thereafter CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/16/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SARA HAUSMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-391-T-33AAS

CAREMARK, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.
/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon review of the file.
For the reasons that follow, the Court remands this action to
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.
Discussion
Plaintiff Sara Hausmann alleges that she attempted “to
receive a prescription for her birth control” on April 13, 2016,
at Holiday CVS, LLC Target Pharmacy #3257. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 9).
The prescription medication birth control was unavailable, so the
pharmacist recommended another birth control to Hausmann. (Id.
at ¶ 10). Hausmann alleges that Defendants “breached the duty
owed to Plaintiff when the incorrect prescription medication was
provided to Plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶ 12).

1

Hausmann claims to have

“suffered injuries and damages” as follows: “(1) conscious pain
and suffering in the past and in the future; (2) loss of past and
future earnings and earning potential; (3) past and future medical
expenses; (4) mental anguish; (5) loss of capacity for the
enjoyment of life; (6) physical injuries; (7) disability; (8)
aggravation of a previously existing condition; and (9) any other
damages that this Court deems appropriate.” (Id.at ¶ 14). Count
I of her Complaint seeks damages for negligence against CVS and
Holiday CVS, LLC Target Pharmacy #3257. Count II of her Complaint
seeks to hold Target vicariously liable because “CVS was the
agent, servant and/or subsidiary of Target acting within the
scope of the ownership agreement between the parties.” (Id.at ¶
16).
Defendants removed the case from the
Circuit,

in

and

for

Thirteenth

Judicial

Hillsborough County, Florida on February

15, 2018, predicating jurisdiction on complete diversity
citizenship. (Doc. # 1).
diversity
among

of citizenship,

of

When jurisdiction is premised upon
28

U.S.C.

§

1332(a)

requires,

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

2

1316,

1319

(11th

unspecified,

the

Cir.

2001).

removing

Further,

party

if

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).

Hausmann does not make a specified claim for damages. (Doc.
# 2 at ¶ 1) (generally alleging damages exceeding $15,000).
However, Defendants’ Notice of Removal alleges the jurisdictional
amount is met because “it is facially apparent from the complaint
itself that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum.” (Doc. # 1 at 4).

Nothing could be further from the

truth. The Complaint and Notice of Removal provide no information
about the nature of Hausmann’s alleged injury.
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

*4-5

(M.D.

Fla.

Jan.

17,

2013)(internal citations omitted). Overall, the record is devoid
of evidence to suggest that Hausmann’s damages from this incident
exceed

the

$75,000

amount

in controversy threshold. Compare

Kilmer v. Stryker Corp., No. 5:14-cv-456-Oc-34PRL, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 152072, at *8-10 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2014)(denying motion

3

to remand and finding that the jurisdictional threshold was
satisfied when past medical expenses totaled $72,792.93, and the
record

showed

that

plaintiff

experienced

pain

and

suffering

associated with a failed knee replacement after the accident in
question).
The Court recognizes that Hausmann has listed the following
categories of damages in her Complaint: pain and suffering, loss
of earnings, and earning potential, medical expenses, mental
anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, physical
injury, disability, aggravation of a preexisting injury, and other
damages.

However, as noted, the Court has not been provided with

any information about these broad categories of damages. And, the
manner in which Hausmann has described these categories of damages
is so vague and inexact that the Court would be required to engage
in rank speculation to ascribe these damages with any monetary
value.

For instance, the Court does not know whether Hausmann

suffered from an allergic reaction to the new medication, whether
Hausmann experienced a drug interaction with another substance,
or whether the new birth control was ineffective at preventing a
pregnancy.

The Court should not be required to wade into the deep

waters of speculation in conducting its jurisdictional calculus.

4

As a further example, the Court notes that Hausmann claims
the loss of the ability to earn money, but the Court has not been
supplied with information as to whether she is employed and, if
so, the nature of her wages or her occupation.

Similarly, she

seeks redress for “disability,” and other damages, yet the file
before the Court lacks information to support these allegations.
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 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,

Defendants fall short of meeting this burden.

The Court,

finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, remands this
case to state court.

5

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1)

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

REMAND

this

case

to

the

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida.
(2)

The

Clerk

previously

is

further

scheduled

directed

deadlines

to

terminate

any

and

hearings,

and

thereafter CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
16th day of February, 2018.

6