Rodriguez v. Royal Trucking Company et al
| Rick M Rodriguez |
| Royal Trucking Company and Travis Kendrell Locus |
| 8:2021cv01542 |
| June 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Virginia M Hernandez Covington |
| Anthony E Porcelli |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 23 U.S.C. ยง 134 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ENDORSED ORDER: On June 25, 2021, Defendants removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). Also on June 25, the Court explained that "the evidence cited by Defendants in their notice of removal fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000." (Doc. # 3). Specifically, Defendants only established that Plaintiff has incurred approximately $38,000 total in past medical expenses and lost wages--far below the $75,000 threshold. Given Defendants' failure to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court gave Defendants an opportunity "to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by July 2, 2021." Yet, that date has passed and Defendants have not filed any additional information regarding the amount in controversy calculation. Therefore, because Defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court lacks jurisdiction and this case must be remanded. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to state court. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/6/2021. (DMD)
|
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER: Defendants removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). 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). Upon review, the evidence cited by Defendants in their notice of removal fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants have only shown that Plaintiff has incurred concrete damages of less than $38,000--less than $30,000 in past medical expenses and less than $8,000 in lost wages. All other categories of damages, including pain and suffering and future medical expenses, are pure speculation because no specific information is provided to support their calculation. Accordingly, Defendants are directed to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by July 2, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/25/2021. (DMD)
|
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. New case number: 8:21-cv-1542-VMC-AEP. (SJB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pasco County, case number 2021-CA-000239 filed in State Court on 02/03/2021. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AFLMDC-18408764 filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 State Court COMPLAINT, #2 State Court ANSWER, #3 State Court Docket Sheet, #4 State Court Other Documents, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Morris-Webster, Sage) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
