Rocha v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Romualdo Silva Rocha
Defendant: GEICO General Insurance Company
Case Number: 8:2021cv00291
Filed: February 5, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Virginia M Hernandez Covington
Referring Judge: Anthony E Porcelli
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ENDORSED ORDER denying #19 Motion for Attorney Fees. While the Court ultimately remanded this case to state court, the actions of counsel in removing the case do not warrant the awarding of fees. Indeed, this is the type of situation where a different court may very well have ruled differently. The request is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/2/2021. (Covington, Virginia)
March 2, 2021 Filing 19 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Romualdo Silva Rocha. (Waggener, Christopher)
February 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER: The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. After remand, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/22/2021. (LEA) (LEA).
February 22, 2021 Filing 17 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by GEICO General Insurance Company. Related case(s): No (Palmer, Brentt)
February 22, 2021 Filing 16 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by GEICO General Insurance Company. (Palmer, Brentt)
February 22, 2021 Filing 15 CORPORATE Disclosure Statement by GEICO General Insurance Company identifying Corporate Parent Berkshire Hathaway Inc. for GEICO General Insurance Company. (Palmer, Brentt)
February 16, 2021 Filing 14 RESPONSE re 4 Order filed by GEICO General Insurance Company. (Palmer, Brentt)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ENDORSED ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, and by March 2, 2021, file a completed Case Management Report. The Court believes that six to eight months is a sufficient period of time to conduct discovery in the vast majority of cases. If the parties believe that more than eight months will be needed to complete discovery, the parties should provide the Court with a detailed explanation as to why additional time is needed and a timeline for the discovery that is planned. After the Case Management Report is filed, the Court will determine whether a Case Management Hearing is necessary before entry of a Case Management and Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/16/2021. (LEA)
February 16, 2021 Filing 12 NOTICE of Local Rule 3.03, which requires each party to file a disclosure statement with the first appearance that identifies (1) each person that has or might have an interest in the outcome, (2) each entity with publicly traded shares or debt potentially affected by the outcome, (3) each additional entity likely to actively participate, and (4) each person arguably eligible for restitution. The disclosure statement must include this certification - I certify that, except as disclosed, I am unaware of an actual or potential conflict of interest affecting the district judge or the magistrate judge in this action, and I will immediately notify the judge in writing within fourteen days after I know of a conflict. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (TWL)
February 16, 2021 Filing 11 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.07(c), which requires lead counsel to promptly file a Notice of a Related Action that identifies and describes any related action pending in the Middle District. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (TWL)
February 16, 2021 Filing 10 NOTICE informing the parties that they may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge by filing Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge using the event Consent to Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (TWL)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ENDORSED ORDER: The Court is aware of the notice entered in this case, explaining that Local Rule 3.02(a)(2) requires the filing of a uniform case management report with forty or seventy days, depending on the circumstances of the case. However, under Local Rule 1.01(b), a judge can modify or suspend for all or part of an action the application of any rule, except Rule 1.05(a). This Court finds it beneficial to enter a fast-track scheduling order in certain categories of cases before entry of a case management and scheduling order. Additionally, in cases that are not fast-tracked, this Court finds it efficient to have the parties confer and file case management reports within 14 days after the defendant's responsive pleading is due or within 14 days after a case is removed to this Court. In light of this, the Court hereby suspends Local Rule 3.02(a)(2) in this case. At a time the Court deems appropriate, the Court will enter a further order in this case setting either a deadline to file a completed uniform case management report or various fast-track deadlines for the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/16/2021. (TWL)
February 16, 2021 Filing 8 NOTICE of Local Rule 3.02(a)(2), which requires the parties in every civil proceeding, except those described in subsection (d), to file a case management report (CMR) using the uniform form at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The CMR must be filed (1) within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within seventy days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases. These forms can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under the Forms tab for each judge. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (TWL)
February 12, 2021 Filing 7 RESPONSE in Opposition re #5 MOTION to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Romualdo Silva Rocha. (Waggener, Christopher)
February 11, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordan Marshall Thompson on behalf of GEICO General Insurance Company (Thompson, Jordan)
February 11, 2021 Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint by GEICO General Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Thompson, Jordan)
February 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ENDORSED ORDER: On February 5, 2021, Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. #1). However, the notice of removal fails to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and when "damages are unspecified, the removing party bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence." Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). GEICO argues that damages exceed $75,000 because Plaintiff Romualdo Rocha's pre-suit demand letter and civil cover sheet indicate he is seeking his policy limit of $100,000. (Doc. # 1 at 3-4). But GEICO provides no concrete factual support that Rocha's damages exceed $75,000, as the only concrete sum is $36,085.16 in past medical expenses. (Id. at 5). Therefore, the Court is unable to determine whether the amount in controversy has been met by Rocha's damages claim without engaging in heavy speculation. Accordingly, by February 16, 2021, GEICO is directed to provide the Court with more information regarding the amount of damages in order to establish that the amount in controversy has been satisfied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/9/2021. (LEA)
February 8, 2021 Filing 3 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint with Jury Demand by GEICO General Insurance Company.(Palmer, Brentt)
February 8, 2021 Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. New case number: 8:21-cv-291-VMC-AEP. (LRB)
February 5, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, case number 20-005860-CI filed in State Court on 12/14/2020. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 113A-17856737 filed by GEICO General Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Civil Cover Sheet, #9 State Court Docket Sheet)(Palmer, Brentt)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rocha v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GEICO General Insurance Company
Represented By: Brentt Palmer
Represented By: Kyle J. Rash
Represented By: Jordan Marshall Thompson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Romualdo Silva Rocha
Represented By: Christopher C. Waggener
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?