Opinion
3:24-cv-705-MMH-MCR
08-15-2024
JEFFREY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BRINKER FLORIDA, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Brinker Florida, Inc.'s Response and Notice of Compliance With Jurisdictional Order (Doc. 7; Jurisdictional Response), filed on July 31, 2024. On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice) removing this case from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida. In the Notice, Defendant invoked the Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 alleging that “Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00[.]” Notice at 6. On July 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 6; Jurisdictional Order) inquiring into its subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court found that Defendant had failed to present a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Jurisdictional Order at 5. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to provide “sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.” Id. at 7. In response to the Court's Jurisdictional Order, Defendant filed its Jurisdictional Response. Upon review of Defendant's Jurisdictional Response and exhibits, the Court remains unable to conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, this case is due to be remanded to the state court in which it was filed.
In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court also questioned whether Defendant had properly alleged Plaintiffs citizenship. See Jurisdictional Order at 2-3. Defendant has since corrected this deficiency in its Jurisdictional Response.
“In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). In cases where, as here, the Court's diversity jurisdiction is invoked, see Notice at 6, the value of a plaintiffs claim must exceed the amount-in-controversy threshold of $75,000. See Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff satisfies this requirement if he claims “a sufficient sum in good faith.” Id. at 807 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)). And generally, a court can dismiss for failure to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement “only if it is convinced ‘to a legal certainty' that the claims of the plaintiff in question will not exceed $75,000 (the current jurisdictional threshold).” See McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 5 F.4th 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 2021).
Significant to this case, however, “the Red Cab Co. ‘legal certainty' test gives way” where diversity jurisdiction is invoked based on a claim for indeterminate, unspecified damages. See McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 807; see also McIntosh, 5 F.4th at 1312; Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC, 907 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2018); Doane v. Tele Circuit Network Corp., 852 Fed.Appx. 404, 406 (11th Cir. 2021); Bradley v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 224 Fed.Appx. 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2007). Damages are indeterminate where a plaintiff makes “no effort to quantify” the damages he seeks. See Doane, 852 Fed.Appx. 407; see also McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 808 (explaining that the damages sought were indeterminate because plaintiff “did not and has not placed any dollar amount on the various damages it is seeking under its bad faith claim”). Notably, establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold requires more than a general allegation that damages exceed $75,000. See Fastcase, 907 F.3d at 1339, 1343; Doane, 852 Fed.Appx. at 407; Bradley, 224 Fed.Appx. at 895. Instead, where damages are indeterminate, “the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets the jurisdictional minimum.” See McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d at 807. “The additional requirement is ‘warranted because there is simply no estimate of damages to which a court may defer.'” See Fastcase, 907 F.3d at 1342 (citation omitted). And, “‘[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.'” See Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also Dibble v. Avrich, No. 14-CIV-61264, 2014 WL 5305468, at *4-6 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2014).
The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent, however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point. See McNamara v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055, 1060-61 (11th Cir. 2022); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).
The Court notes that although decisions of other district courts are not binding, they may be cited as persuasive authority. See Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that, “[a]lthough a district court would not be bound to follow any other district court's determination, the decision would have significant persuasive effects.”).
Of course, in some cases, “it may be ‘facially apparent' from the pleading itself that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, even when ‘the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages.'” See Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010)); see also McIntosh, 5 F.4th at 1312-13 (finding that although damages were unspecified, plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injuries and expenses which, accepted as true, were “sufficient to plead damages that exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement”). Additionally, district courts are permitted “to make ‘reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations' from the pleadings to determine whether” the amount in controversy is satisfied on the face of the complaint. Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061-62. Indeed, a court “need not ‘suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of a complaint . . . establishes the jurisdictional amount.'” Id. (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 770). Nevertheless, the Court may not speculate or guess as to the amount in controversy. See Pretka, 608 F.3d at 752.
Here, Defendant, as the party invoking the Court's jurisdiction, “bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists.” See Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319. In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., the Supreme Court explained that a defendant's notice of removal must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). If the plaintiff contests the allegation, or the court questions it, a defendant must then present evidence establishing that the amount in controversy requirement is met. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)); see also Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909, 912 (11th Cir. 2014). In the Jurisdictional Order, the Court questioned the sufficiency of Defendant's allegations regarding the amount in controversy and provided Defendant with an opportunity to present additional information to make a showing that the value of Plaintiffs claim exceeds $75,000. Defendant has failed to do so.
In the Jurisdictional Response, Defendant argues that it has met its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because (1) Plaintiff has already incurred $25,114.78 in medical bills and is likely to incur additional medical expenses in the future; (2) Plaintiff presented Defendant with a settlement demand in the amount of $1,000,000; (3) the civil cover sheet filed in state court lists Plaintiffs damages as being over $100,000; and (4) Plaintiffs lost wages are approximately $46,800. See Jurisdictional Response at 5-10. For the reasons discussed below, the information Defendant provides is insufficient to satisfy the Court's inquiry into its subject matter jurisdiction.
First, Defendant argues that because Plaintiff has already incurred $25,114.78 in medical expenses, and “has been referred for imaging, neurological assessment, and pain management treatment,” it is likely that Plaintiffs past and future medical expenses will exceed $75,000. Id. at 5-8. Whether Plaintiff will actually incur these medical expenses in the future is entirely speculative. Moreover, although Defendant has provided the Court with documentation that Plaintiff has been referred for future medical treatment, Defendant has provided no information which would allow the Court to estimate the cost of such treatment. Thus, “the unsubstantiated cost of these hypothetical future medical expenses is too speculative to include in the amount-in-controversy calculation.” Parham v. Osmond, No. 8:19-cv-592-T-60SPF, 2019 WL 3822193, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2019).
Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs settlement demand of $1,000,000 is evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Jurisdictional Response at 6. As the Court noted in its Jurisdictional Order, “an initial demand for settlement generally does not serve as a sufficient basis for ascertaining the amount in controversy.” Erler v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-cv-1090-Orl-40GJK, 2017 WL 10058597, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2017). Instead, “[o]nly where a demand provides specific information and a reasonable assessment of the damages claimed is it possible for the defendant to ascertain the amount in controversy and rely on the demand to support removal.” Id. Here, Defendant acknowledges that “Plaintiffs proposal for settlement did not come with medical records to support his claimed damages,” but contends that the medical records obtained during discovery corroborate Plaintiffs proposal. Jurisdictional Response at 5. However, as noted above, Plaintiffs future medical expenses are too speculative to be considered in the amount in controversy calculation. Thus, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff's settlement demand is supported by “specific information and a reasonable assessment of the damages claimed[.]” Erler, 2017 WL 10058597 at *1.
Third, Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs civil cover sheet alleges damages in excess of $100,000 this is evidence that the amount in controversy has been met. See Jurisdictional Response at 9-10. As the Court noted in its Jurisdictional Order, “a civil cover sheet is used for ‘data collection and clerical processing purposes only' and ‘shall not be used for any other purpose.'” Jurisdictional Order at 5 (quoting Cain v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-790-TJC-PDB, 2023 WL 5153482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2023)). Therefore, “[a]bsent any additional facts, reliance on the civil cover sheet alone is insufficient.” Id. Defendant acknowledges this point, but contends that the civil cover sheet, combined with Plaintiffs demand letter and medical bills, is sufficient to show that the amount in controversy is satisfied. See Jurisdictional Response at 9-10. However, as the Court has already found that Plaintiffs demand letter and medical bills are inadequate to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, these documents in conjunction with Plaintiffs civil cover sheet are likewise insufficient.
Finally, Defendant argues that because “Plaintiff is also making a lost wage claim” the Court can consider the fact that Plaintiff made “roughly $46,800/year” at his previous job in calculating the amount in controversy. Id. at 8. Notably, the previous employment that Defendant is referencing is Plaintiff's job at Capital Building Materials from 2015-2019. See Plaintiffs Unverified Answers to Interrogatories at 1 (Doc. 7-1). But, as Plaintiffs accident is alleged to have occurred on November 29, 2022, the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs previous employment is an accurate representation of what his damages currently are. Moreover, Defendant points to no allegation or evidence suggesting that Plaintiff has been unable to work for a year or that he is actually claiming such lost wages. Thus, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs previous employment in its amount in controversy calculation.
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As such, this case is due to be remanded.
In state court, Defendant can engage in discovery pursuant to the relevant Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. If through such discovery Defendant ascertains that the case is one which is or has become removable, Defendant may consider filing another notice of removal, if timely, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, for further proceedings.
2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that court.
3. The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.