Koppey v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 19

ORDER. The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court DE#9 is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit inand for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 10/13/2020. See attached document for full details. (ebz)

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
TERESA KOPPEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Teresa Koppey’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Remand, ECF No. [9] (“Motion”). Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
(“Defendant”) filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [17] (“Response”), to which Plaintiff filed
a Reply, ECF No. [18] (“Reply”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record in this
case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, the
Motion is granted.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an insurance claim for property damage. Plaintiff originally filed
this action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida. ECF No. [1-2] (“Complaint”). On August 27, 2020, Defendant removed the case to federal
court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. [1] (“Notice”). Plaintiff now moves to remand
this case back to state court, arguing that Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in
controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00 because it improperly relies on an aggregate
settlement demand for two related cases between the parties to meet the threshold amount. Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
maintains that the amount in controversy in this case falls below the $75,000.00 amount required
for diversity jurisdiction. Defendant disagrees.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Removal is proper in “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). To establish original
jurisdiction, a lawsuit must demonstrate the existence of either federal question jurisdiction,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal
question jurisdiction arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id.
§ 1331. Diversity jurisdiction, on the other hand, exists where the parties are citizens of different
states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id. § 1332(a).
“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Coffey v.
Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Where, as here, the plaintiff
has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction requirement.” Pretka v.
Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Further, in determining whether a subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court must focus on the
amount in controversy at the time of removal, not at any later point. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751
(citations omitted); E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2015).
“To determine whether this standard is met, a court first examines whether ‘it is facially apparent
from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.’”
Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy
Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)), abrogated on other grounds by Dudley v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014). “If the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent

2

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
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.” Id. (quoting Williams,
269 F.3d at 1319).
“[A] removing defendant is not required to prove the amount in controversy beyond all
doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (citations omitted). “Where,
as in this case, the complaint alleges an unspecified amount of 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.” DO Rests., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 984
F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061
(11th Cir. 2010)). Moreover, “defendants may submit a wide range of evidence in order to satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of removal,” including “affidavits, declarations, or other
documentation.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 755. The Court may also use its judicial experience and make
reasonable inferences and deductions to determine the amount in controversy. See Roe, 613 F.3d
at 1061-62; Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (discussing the difference between reasonable deductions and
inferences with “conjecture, speculation, or star gazing”); E.S.Y., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1360.
“Any ‘doubt about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.’” Family Meat,
Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 1:19-cv-20154, 2019 WL 8160417, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2019)
(quoting Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999)).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Notice in the instant action states that subject-matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a) on the basis of the parties’ diversity of citizenship. ECF No. [1] ¶ 4. The Notice
represents that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida, id. ¶ 6, and Defendant is organized under the laws

3

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
of Illinois and has its principal place of business in Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 7. Thus, Defendant
maintains that the parties are diverse.
Although the Complaint only alleges damages in excess of $30,000.00, ECF No. [1-2] at
46, ¶ 1, Defendant contends that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00 because
Plaintiff’s state court civil cover sheet indicated the amount of claim as $150,000.00 and Plaintiff
sent Defendant a demand for $113,272.17 in insurance benefits and attorneys’ fees on February
18, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 8-10; see also ECF Nos. [1-3] & [1-4]. Plaintiff responds that the amount
demanded in February is not the accurate amount in controversy at the time of removal because
Defendant subsequently made payments under the insurance policy to Plaintiff and the parties’
later settlement negotiations further reduced the amount of damages. Thus, Plaintiff argues that
the amount in controversy is more accurately reflected in the pre-suit settlement demand attached
to her Motion, which demands $57,102.24 in damages for the claim in this case and $33,747.00 in
attorneys’ fees and costs for both this case and Plaintiff’s related case, Koppey v. Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, 1:20-cv-23581-MGC. See ECF No. [9-1].1 Moreover, Plaintiff argues
that Defendant’s reliance on the amount listed in the state court cover sheet is misplaced because
the subsequent amendment to the state court civil cover sheet expressly states that the amount is
only to be used for data collection and clerical processing purposes. As such, Plaintiff argues that
the cover sheet amount is inappropriate evidence to consider in determining the amount in
controversy.
Critically, Defendant does not dispute that the settlement demand attached to Plaintiff’s
Motion was submitted after the February letter and after Defendant made certain payments to

The settlement demand contains a separate demand of $39,638.76 for the damages sustained in Plaintiff’s
separate case pending before Judge Cooke. ECF No. [1-1]. Nonetheless, the amount of attorneys’ fees and
costs demanded is a combined amount for both cases. Id.
1

4

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
Plaintiff under the policy. Rather, Defendant maintains that the state court civil cover sheet
amount, coupled with the amount in the February demand letter, sufficiently establish that the
amount in controversy here exceeds $75,000.00. Moreover, Defendant argues that, even assuming
Plaintiff’s requested amount of $57,102.24 is the proper amount of damages, the amount in
controversy still exceeds the required threshold when the full amount of attorneys’ fees are
included.
Defendant’s arguments are not well taken. Upon review of the exhibits attached both to
Defendant’s Notice and to Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
Specifically, the more recent settlement demand attached to Plaintiff’s Motion clearly establishes
that the amount of damages in this case at the time of removal is $57,102.24. ECF No. [9-1]; see
Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751 (amount in controversy requirement is determined at the time of removal).
Additionally, it defies logic to assign the entire amount of attorneys’ fees and costs requested for
two separate cases solely to this case for the purpose of satisfying the amount in controversy
requirement. Instead, when the attorneys’ fees amount is divided across both cases, the total
amount in controversy here still fails to meet the $75,000.00 threshold.2 As noted above, this Court
resolves all doubts about its jurisdiction in favor of remand. See Family Meat, Inc., 2019 WL
8160417, at *2 (quoting Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 411). Because Defendant has failed to meet
its burden of establishing the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, remand
is appropriate here. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Half of the requested attorneys’ fees amount ($16,873.50) plus the $57,102.24 of damages yields a total
amount in controversy of $73,975.74.
2

5

Case 1:20-cv-23583-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 6 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-23583-BLOOM/Louis
1. The Motion, ECF No. [9], is GRANTED.
2. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
4. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are
TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, October 13, 2020.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

6