Opinion
21-cv-24137-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
01-20-2022
CESAR PANTOJA, Plaintiff, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff, Cesar Pantoja's, Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. [9] (“Motion”). Defendant, Geovera Specialty Insurance Corporation, filed a Response, ECF No. [10], to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [11]. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion is granted and the case is remanded to state court.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter stems from a lawsuit Plaintiff filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on February 26, 2021. ECF No. [1] at 7. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to pay an insurance claim for property damage. Id. at 8-15. Plaintiff alleges that the property damage exceeds $30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Id. at 7.
On November 24, 2021, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal, ECF No. [1] (“Notice”), asserting diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a). The Notice states that on October 27, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a repair estimate of $50,310.83, and a settlement demand of $79,800.00, inclusive of attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 2. Defendant represents that the estimate and settlement demand provide grounds for removal because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id.
Plaintiff now moves to remand the case back to state court on the basis that Defendant has failed to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00-and specifically, the attorney's fees that make up part of the amount in controversy. ECF No. [9]. Plaintiff contends that for purposes of establishing federal jurisdiction, attorney's fees are determined at the time of removal. Id. at 6-8. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has failed to prove that Plaintiff had incurred at least $29,489.17 in attorney's fees at the time of removal, which would be necessary to reach the $75,000.00 threshold, accounting for the $50,310.83 repair estimate. Id. at 9-13.
Defendant responds that Plaintiff's settlement demand was sufficiently detailed to establish that the amount in controversy threshold has been met. ECF No. [10] at 4-5. Defendant, however, does not address Plaintiff's arguments regarding the time for calculating attorney's fees upon removal. See id.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) vests a district court with subject matter jurisdiction when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id. A party may remove the action from state court to federal court if the action is within the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Generally, a notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of the initial pleading[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). However, “if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may be first ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Coffey v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Where . . . the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction requirement.” Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court must focus on the amount in controversy at the time of removal, not at any later point. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751 (citations omitted); E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F.Supp.3d 1356, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “To determine whether this standard is met, a court first examines whether ‘it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.'” Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)), abrogated on other grounds by Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014). “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. (quoting Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319).
Although defendants have a statutory right to remove an action, “the right of removal is strictly construed, as it is considered a federal infringement on a state's power to adjudicate disputes in its own courts.” Rietwyk v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2219730, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2010) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)); see also Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). Thus, “when the court's jurisdiction over a case is doubtful, doubts are resolved in favor of remand.” Id. (citing Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1997)); see also Whitt v. Sherman Int'l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[I]t is axiomatic that ambiguities are generally construed against removal.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[W]here plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.”).
III. DISCUSSION
As this Court has explained in previous cases that have raised the same jurisdictional issue, the Eleventh Circuit “has not yet clarified whether the amount of attorney's fees included in the amount in controversy is the amount accrued at the time of removal or the prospective amount of attorney's fees required to litigate the entire case.” Castillo v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-20059, 2021 WL 58116, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2021). The lack of clarity has split the district courts, but this Court has taken the stance “that the amount in controversy does not include highly speculative, prospective amounts of attorney's fees, but rather includes only those fees accrued as of the time of removal.” Hernandez v. ITW Food Equip. Grp. LLC, No. 20-CV-24583, 2021 WL 602586, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Blasini v. W. World Ins. Co., No. 21-23261-CIV, 2021 WL 5832772, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2021) (“Attorney's fees as calculated at the time of removal may be included in the amount in controversy.”). Defendant provides no authority to the contrary.
Here, Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The repair estimate of $50,310.83 is sufficiently detailed for jurisdictional purposes. ECF No. [1] at 16-28. However, Plaintiff's settlement demand simply requests “$79,800.00 GLOBAL (exclusive of AOBs).” Id. at 78. Although there was activity in the case prior to removal, see ECF No. 6-1 (state docket sheet), it is entirely speculative whether Plaintiff's fees had exceeded $29,000.00 at the time of removal. Notably, the Court must resolve all doubts about its jurisdiction in favor of remand. See Family Meat, Inc., 2019 WL 8160417, at *2. As such, because Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, remand is appropriate.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, ECF No. [9], is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.