Ortega-Pleasant v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/29/2015. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-60462-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
JENNIFER ORTEGA-PLEASANT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., d/b/a
THE HOME DEPOT, a foreign
Corporation, and YOANKY
HERNANDEZ, as store manager,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
THIS MATTER is before me on Plaintiff Jennifer Ortega-Pleasant’s Motion
to Remand (ECF No. 6). Defendants have not timely filed a response in opposition
to the Motion to Remand. For the reasons explained in this Order, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Remand is granted, and this matter is remanded back to the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
I.

BACKGROUND

This negligence case was originally filed in state court. Defendants
subsequently removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff and Defendant Yoanky Hernandez (“Hernandez”)
are both citizens of Florida, but they allege that Hernandez was only joined as a
defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Defendants further attempt to
establish diversity jurisdiction on the grounds that Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter
offered to settle the lawsuit for $1,000,000. Plaintiff’s medical bills and expenses,
however, as set forth in the pre-suit demand and as represented by Plaintiff in the
Motion to Remand, amount to under $16,000.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

“Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different

1

states and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed amount.”
Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)). The amount in controversy necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction is
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[T]he burden of
proving jurisdiction lies with the removing defendant.” Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against
the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal
jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur.
Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). “[R]emoval statutes are construed
narrowly.” Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994).
III.

DISCUSSION

Defendant relies on a pre-suit demand letter to establish the amount in
controversy requirement. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 3). The pre-suit demand letter describes
the alleged injury sustained by Plaintiff after she slipped and fell at Defendant Home
Depot's premises. (ECF No. 1-1). Essentially, Plaintiff claims she suffered one
herniated disc, and associated spinal injury, as a result of her fall. Id. The pre-suit
demand letter further states that Plaintiff has reached maximum medical
improvement, and has suffered a 10% permanent impairment to her body. Id. The
total medical bills and expenses claimed by Plaintiff amounted to $15,374.73,
according to the pre-suit demand letter. Id. Nevertheless, Plaintiff demanded
$1,000,000 as a settlement amount. Id.
The weight given to settlement offers in determining the actual amount in
controversy in any given case will depend on the circumstances. Jackson v. Select
Portfolio

Servicing,

Inc.,

651

F.Supp.2d

1279,

1281

(S.D.

Ala.

2009).

“Settlement offers commonly reflect puffing and posturing, and such a settlement
offer is entitled to little weight in measuring the preponderance of the evidence. On
the other hand, settlement offers that provide ‘specific information ... to support [the
plaintiff’s] claim for damages’ suggest the plaintiff is ‘offering a reasonable
assessment of the value of [his] claim’ and are entitled to more weight. Id. (citation
omitted).
In this case, the settlement offer is devoid of the type of detail needed to carry

2

Defendants' burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
as required for diversity jurisdiction purposes. There is no detailed explanation as to
why Plaintiff's claim would be worth five times the amount Plaintiff has expended on
medical bills. Certainly, there is no explanation to support the claim of $1,000,000,
indicating that the settlement offer was mostly just puffing and postering.
Given that the evidence is insufficient to establish that removal was proper or
that jurisdiction is present, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.

2.

This matter is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court of the

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4.

All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of May
2015.

Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record

3