Path Medical, LLC, as assignee of Tanya Arroyo Santiago v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Filing 10

Order Remanding Case to State Court Closing Case. Motions terminated: 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 6 MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM f iled by Path Medical, LLC, 6 MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by GEICO General Insurance Company, 5 MOTION to Change Venue filed by GEICO General Ins urance Company. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/10/2018. (vmz) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Path Medical, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO General Insurance
Company, Defendant.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 18-60868-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order Remanding Case to State Court
This matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the record.
The Defendant removed this case from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in
and for Broward County based upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1). Upon further review of the notice and the
complaint (ECF No. 1-3 at 4-29), the Court determines that this case should be
remanded back to the state court.
A “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction at any time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir.
2006). Indeed, the Court is obligated to consider jurisdiction “even if it means
raising the issue sua sponte.” In re Donovan, 532 F.3d 1134, 1136 (11th Cir.
2008) (citing AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.,
494 F.3d 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2007)). Additionally, federal courts are directed
to construe removal statutes strictly and “all doubts about jurisdiction should be
resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Univ. of So. Ala. v. American Tobacco
Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, “once a federal court
determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless
to continue.” Id. at 410.
A party seeking removal of a civil action has the burden to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that federal jurisdiction exists. Pretka v. Kolter
City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Vega v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n.12 (11th Cir. 2009)). Diversity jurisdiction
exists when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where, as in this case, the
allegations of a complaint make an unspecified claim for damages, “the district
court is not bound by the plaintiff’s representations regarding its claim,” and
may review the record for evidence relevant to the amount in controversy. Roe v.
Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, “[t]he
substantive jurisdictional requirements of removal do not limit the types of

evidence that may be used to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence
standard. Defendants may introduce their own affidavits, declarations, or other
documentation” to meet their burden. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 755. Importantly,
however, a court’s analysis of the amount in controversy focuses only on how
much is in controversy at the time of removal, not later. Id. at 751; see also
Shaver v. Ford Motor Co., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1236 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Marra,
J.).
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and bad
faith arising from the Defendant’s failure to pay for medical treatment rendered
to the insured, Tanya Arroyo Santiago. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and specifically alleges that the
“amount presently at issue is greater than One-Hundred Dollars ($100.00) but
does not exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00).” (Compl. at ¶ 2.) In addition,
the Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand in the amount of $1,987.71. (See Compl.
Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-3 at 18-19.) Therefore, upon the face of the complaint, the
jurisdictional amount is not satisfied. See Miedema v. Maytag Corp. 450 F.3d
1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[A] court first examines whether it is facially
apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional requirement.”) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d
1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the Court looks
to the notice of removal.
In the notice, the Defendant contends that in addition to unspecified
medical treatment costs, the Court should consider present and future
attorney’s fees and punitive damages in the calculation of the amount in
controversy, but provides no basis upon which the Court may determine what a
reasonable amount may be. The Defendant further asserts that the value of the
declaratory judgment sought by the Plaintiff is significantly more than $75,000,
and references a related case currently pending in the Middle District of Florida,
in which the Defendant is seeking $15,000,000 for alleged fraud by the Plaintiff
across a number of related cases involving in part the claimed charges in this
case. However, that is an entirely different case from the case at bar, which
involves one individual’s claim for coverage.
As a result, the Defendant has not met its burden of proving that the
amount in controversy is satisfied in the present case, and thus, that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County. All pending
motions, if any, are denied as moot. The Court directs the Clerk to close this
case.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on May 10, 2018.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge