Walker v. Mid Century Insurance Company

Filing 8

Order Remanding Case to State Court. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending Motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 10/13/2020. See attached document for full details. (kpe)

Case 1:20-cv-24122-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-24122-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
ANDREW WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MID CENTURY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
__________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff Andrew
Walker (“Plaintiff”) originally filed this action on September 11, 2020, in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. ECF No. [1-1] (“Complaint”).
On October 8, 2020, Defendant Mid Century Insurance Company (“Defendant”) removed the case
to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. [1] (“Notice”). The Court has
carefully reviewed the Notice, the underlying Complaint, the record in this case, the applicable
law, and is otherwise fully advised.
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).

Case 1:20-cv-24122-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-24122-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
“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 jurisdictional requirement.” Pretka v.
Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In
determining whether 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); see also Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Removability
should be determined ‘according to the plaintiff’s pleading at the time of the petition for removal.’”
(citing Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537 (1939))).
Furthermore, “a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S.
258, 291 (1947)). Accordingly, “[t]he district court may remand a case sua sponte for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561
F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)); see also Lexington-Fayette Urban
Cty. Gov’t Civ. Serv. Comm’n v. Overstreet, 115 F. App’x 813, 816-17 (6th Cir. 2004) (“A federal
court may remand a case sua sponte where the allegations of the complaint which gave rise to the
federal jurisdictional basis are insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.”
(citation omitted)). As such, “once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter
jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “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., 168 F.3d at 411).

2

Case 1:20-cv-24122-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-24122-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
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] ¶ 6. The Notice
states that Plaintiff is a resident of Miami, Florida. Id. ¶ 2. Further, the Notice alleges that
Defendant has its principal place of business in Wisconsin and does not conduct business in
Florida. Id. ¶ 3. Thus, Defendant maintains that the parties are diverse.
Additionally, although the Complaint only alleges damages in excess of $30,000.00, ECF
No. [1-1] at 5, ¶ 1, Defendant contends that “the claimed amount of damages demanded are
$500,000.00,” ECF No. [1] ¶ 5. Remarkably, however, Defendant provides no documents or
explanation to support the alleged $500,000.00 amount. See generally id. Moreover, a review of
the Complaint reveals that no such amount is demanded in the pleading. See ECF No. [1-1].
Defendant’s Notice falls woefully short of meeting its burden of establishing the amount in
controversy. See Pretka, 608 F.3d at 752. The Court therefore concludes that it does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant action. As such, remand is appropriate here. See Family
Meat, Inc., 2019 WL 8160417, at *2 (quoting Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 411).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED to the
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk
of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending Motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, October 13, 2020.

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

3