Summary
finding that the defendant failed to establish the jurisdic- tional amount by merely citing to "cases where other plaintiffs were awarded large amounts in compensatory and/or punitive damages without comparing the factual or legal claims made in those cases to [p]laintiff's claims"
Summary of this case from Hardman v. Zale Del., Inc.Opinion
CASE NO. 03-62067-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
February 17, 2004
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a Motion to Remand to State Court (D.E. 11), filed on December 18, 2003. On January 2, 2004, Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff's Motion. (D.E. 14.) On January 13, 2004, Plaintiff replied to Defendant's Response, Having considered the Motion, Response, Reply and the record, the Court finds as follows.
I. Background
On October 14, 2003, Plaintiff John Destel filed the Complaint in this case in Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (Complaint, D.E. 1), alleging national origin and race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"), Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq., and the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 448.101 et seq., against Defendant McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. On November 19, 2004, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with this Court alleging that removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal ¶ 5.) Defendant asserts that diversity of citizenship exists between the parties to this matter, as Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and Defendant is a New York corporation with its principle place of business in New York. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. For each count of the four-count Complaint Plaintiff is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees pursuant to Florida statute, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. ¶ 7. Defendant contends that it "has a good faith belief that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." Id. ¶ 8.
II. Parties' Arguments
In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that "Defendant has not alleged nor can he prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000." (Mot. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had not produced any evidence in support of its claim that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff estimates damage calculations as to back pay and attorney's fees to date at approximately $20,000. Id. ¶ 10. Thus, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of federal jurisdiction. Id. at 4. Plaintiff requests that he be awarded attorney's fees and costs related to the instant Motion to Remand. Id. ¶ 11. In its Response, Defendant argues that this case was properly removed and that it has met its burden of establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction. (Response at 1.) Defendant asserts that if Plaintiff were to prevail in this suit, he would be entitled to approximately $64,000 in back pay alone. Id. at 2-3. Defendant further contends that it is disingenuous for Plaintiff to suggest that a reasonable assessment of the compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees would be less than the additional $11,000 necessary to reach the statutory minimum of $75,000. Id. at 3. Thus, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand should be denied.
In his Reply, Plaintiff argues that in reaching its back pay estimate Defendant has neglected to take into account its fifth affirmative defense, which states that "Defendant is entitled to offset against Plaintiff's claimed damages any amount Plaintiff earned or should have earned through reasonable diligence." (Reply at 1, Answer at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that, to date, his back pay would be offset by approximately $19,300 in earnings. Id. at 3. Thus, Plaintiff estimates that he is presently entitled to a back pay award of approximately $11,200. Id. Plaintiff further estimates his attorney's fees to date at approximately $5,000 — $7,500.Id. Plaintiff contends that compensatory and punitive damages in a case such as this one are "completely intangible and speculative in nature." Id. at 7. Plaintiff argues that while his back pay and attorney's fees claims will increase throughout the pendency of this action, Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they are likely to reach or exceed $75,000. Id. Plaintiff again asserts that he is entitled to attorney's fees and costs related to the filing of his Motion to Remand. Id. at 8.
III. Analysis
A. Motion to Remand
Any civil case filed in state court may be removed by the defendant to federal court if the case could have been brought originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removing defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of federal jurisdiction. Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on other grounds by. Cohen v. Office Depot. 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). Removal statutes are to be construed narrowly; where plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). In a case such as this one, where the plaintiff alleges an unspecified amount of damages in the state court complaint, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's claims meet the minimum jurisdictional amount. Id. at 1357;Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Circuit has explained the approach a district court should take in evaluating the amount in controversy in a case that has been removed from state court, as follows:
By contrast, when a plaintiff alleges a specific amount in controversy below the jurisdictional amount, the defendant must prove "to a legal certainty" that the plaintiff's claims actually exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Burns. 31 F.3d at 1095.
When the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. 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.Id. at 1319. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that "[a] conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden. Id. at 1319-20.
In the instant case, the parties agree that it is not facially apparent from the Complaint that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. In addition, Defendant's Notice of Removal contains nothing more than a conclusory statement that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. (See. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 7-8.) Thus, the Court considers the arguments and evidence raised by Defendant in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to determine whether Defendant has met its burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists.
In its Response, Defendant relies mainly on its calculation of back pay to establish that the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement has been met. Defendant reasons that because Plaintiff earned $21,478.25 during his ten months of employment with Defendant, he would be entitled to approximately $64,434,75 in back pay for a back pay period of thirty months. (Response at 5.) In his Reply, Plaintiff points out that Defendant has ignored its own affirmative defenses in calculating Plaintiff's potential back pay award. (Reply at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff points to Defendant's fifth affirmative defense, which states that "Defendant is entitled to offset against Plaintiff's claimed damages any amount Plaintiff earned or should have earned through reasonable diligence." (Reply at 1; Answer at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that he has earned approximately $19,300 since he was terminated by Defendant. (Reply at 3.) Plaintiff estimates that to date he is entitled to $11, 200 in back pay. Id.
Defendant's calculations are based on a thirty-month back pay period beginning on the date Plaintiff was terminated, August 15, 2002, and ending on February 11, 2005, the parties' proposed trial date. (Response at 5.)
In addition, Defendant argues that the value of Plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees for the sixteen-month period from the filing of the Complaint to the proposed trial date would meet or exceed the remaining $11,000 required to satisfy the jurisdictional minimum. (Response at 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute this estimate. (Reply at 7.)
Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages should be considered and that the value of those claims, when added to the potential back pay and attorney's fees award, exceeds the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement. (Response at 7.) In support of this argument, Defendant relies upon Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5), which allows for a maximum recovery of $100,000 in punitive damages under FCRA, and cites to three cases in which a FCRA plaintiff was awarded anywhere from $100,000 to $275,000 in compensatory and/or punitive damages. Id. In his Reply, Plaintiff asserts that any compensatory or punitive damages are "completely intangible and speculative in nature," (Reply at 7.) Plaintiff states that he will be seeking compensatory damages for humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of dignity, but that he "did not suffer any diagnosed psychological impairment nor did he seek any medical or psychological treatment for emotional distress related to his termination." Id. In addition, Plaintiff states that it is premature to place any value on his punitive damage claim. Id. at 8.
In light of Plaintiff's disclosure that he has earned more than $19,000 since his termination by Defendant, the Court finds that a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff's claim for back pay is between $22,000 and $23,000, or double the amount he estimates that he is owed to date. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that presently his attorney's fees are between $5,000 and $7,500. (Reply at 3.) If that number were tripled to include the fees associated with conducting discovery, preparing for trial, and trying the case, it would still only total between $15,000 and $22,500. Thus, Plaintiff's estimated back pay and attorney's fees combined amount to between $37,000 and $45,500. Although Defendant has alleged that the value of Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages, when added to the potential back pay and attorney's fees award, exceeds the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement, the Court notes that this statement was made based upon Defendant's assessment of Plaintiff's back pay at approximately $64,000. Furthermore, Defendant does not offer any kind of concrete appraisal of the value of Plaintiff's claims for compensatory or punitive damages. Defendant relies on its belief that the "potential value" of Plaintiff's compensatory and punitive damage claims, combined with the value of Plaintiff's other claims for relief, exceeds the jurisdictional amount. (Response at 7.) However, Defendant does not offer any evidence or point to any underlying facts that might support such an assertion. Id. Instead, Defendant cites to cases where other plaintiff's were awarded large amounts in compensatory and/or punitive damages without comparing the factual or legal claims made in those cases to Plaintiff's claims or explaining the relevance of those awards to the instant inquiry. Id. Thus, in light of the Court's significantly lower estimate of Plaintiff's potential back pay award, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 and grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
As Plaintiff's calculation of $11, 200 in back pay is based on the seventeen month period since Plaintiff was terminated by defendant, the Court notes that Plaintiff's figure should be doubled to more closely approximate the award Plaintiff will be entitled to on the proposed trial date.
B. Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs Related to Motion to Remand
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to attorney's fees and costs related to the filing of the instant Motion to Remand. (Reply at 8-9.) Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which states in relevant part: "[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." Whether to award attorney's fees and costs under this subsection is within the Court's sole discretion. Deibel v. S.B. Trucking Company, 262 F. Supp.2d 1319, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2003). Moreover, although the Fifth Circuit recognized that proof of bad faith is not required, that Court observed that "we are not persuaded that Congress intended for routine imposition of attorney's fees against the removing party when the party properly removed." Miranti v. Lee, 3 F.3d 925, 928 (5th Cir. 1993). In Miranti, the Fifth Circuit explained that the main consideration when evaluating a request for a fee award under § 1447(c) is the defendant's decision to remove. Id. In that case, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees where the defendant had properly removed and the conduct criticized by the district court occurred after removal. Id. at 929.
In the instant case, Plaintiff argues that Defendant possessed no evidence to substantiate its claim that the requisite amount in controversy existed when it removed. (Reply at 8.) Plaintiff further states that Defendant acted in bad faith when it opposed his Motion to Remand after having been provided with Plaintiff's income information and damage estimates. Id. However, the Court finds no impropriety in Defendant's decision to remove this matter. Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant knew about Plaintiff's outside earnings at the time Defendant filed the Notice of Removal. Thus, at the time of removal, Defendant reasonably valued Plaintiff's potential back pay award at $64,000 and believed that amount, combined with potential compensatory and punitive damages and statutory attorney's fees, exceeded the jurisdictional amount. As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs related to the filing of the instant Motion for Remand.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (D.E. 11), filed on December 18, 2003, is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is hereby DENIED.
3. This action is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
2. Once a case is remanded to state court, the district court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain any other motions filed by the parties.See Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama. Inc., 951 F.2d 325, 330 (11th Cir. 1992); In re Ocean Marine Mut. Protection Indem. Ass'n., 3 F.3d 353 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED.