Opinion
CASE NO: 8:11-cv-358-T-33TBM.
February 28, 2011
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1). Defendant bases its 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 in a conclusory fashion that "[f]rom the allegations in the complaint by Cusumano in the underlying action, it is evident that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Moreover, the policy at issue in this case has an available limit [of] $1 million." Doc. # 1 at ¶ 5. Such a facial allegation is not enough to satisfy removal unless the jurisdictional amount is apparent from the complaint. Having considered the complaint in this action and the complaint in the underlying action, both fail to meet the demands for establishing amount in controversy. Neither the complaint in this action nor the complaint in the underlying action alleges any specific amount in controversy. Further, the available policy limits of $1 million are not indicative of the amount in controversy.
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 its claim that the amount in controversy as to this matter exceeds $75,000.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of February, 2011.