Opinion
Civil Action No 00-0949-P-L
January 5, 2001
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's Motion To Remand. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff contends that the matter should be remanded to state court because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically the plaintiff avers that, although diversity exists between the plaintiff and defendant, the amount in controversy does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars and in fact is only $20,456.07. The defendant was ordered to show cause by November 29, 2000, why remand should not be granted. (Doc. 7). The defendant has failed to respond.
In the present case, the defendant contends in his notice of removal that subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994), the diversity jurisdiction statute. (Doc. 1). Under § 1332, a district court has jurisdiction over any civil case if (1) the parties are "citizens of different States" and (2) "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994). It is the latter requirement — an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 — that poses the jurisdictional hurdle in this case. "When jurisdiction is premised on the diversity of the parties, the court is obligated to assure itself that the case involves the requisite amount in controversy." Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Company, 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, "[t]he burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." University of South Alabama v. The American Tobacco Company, 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). The defendant has failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy. Therefore, subject matter has not been established and the plaintiff's motion to remand is due to be GRANTED.