Opinion
CASE NO: 8:11-cv-1246-T-33MAP.
June 13, 2011
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Wal-Mart's Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1). Defendant bases the removal on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. While Defendant properly alleges that the parties are diverse, Defendant, as to amount in controversy, states only that "Plaintiff seeks money damages for alleged personal injuries that exceed $75,000.00." Doc. # 1 at ¶ 5. A review of the file reveals that the Amended Complaint states only that "This is an action for damages that exceed FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00)." (Doc. # 3, ¶ 1). The jurisdictional amount is not otherwise apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint.
In Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit held that if the requisite jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the complaint (as is the case here), the district court should look to the notice of removal and may require the defendant to submit evidence supporting its claim. "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. Further, it is the removing defendant's burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant, no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order, is directed to submit evidence in the form contemplated under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) supporting the claim that the amount in controversy as to this matter exceeds $75,000.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.