Spath v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc.
| Brianna Spath |
| Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. d/b/a HelloFresh and Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. doing business as HelloFresh |
| 8:2022cv02755 |
| December 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Virginia M Hernandez Covington |
| Christopher P Tuite |
| Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ENDORSED ORDER: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. #9), this case is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the alleged class claims, all without costs. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/9/2022. (DMD)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Brianna Spath (Raslavich, Benjamin) |
|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for extension. (Doc. #7). The answer is now due December 23, 2022. However, the Court declines to extend the deadline to provide additional information establishing that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/8/2022. (DMD)
|
| Filing 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. (Randles, Theodore) Modified text on 12/8/2022 (MCB). |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Brianna Spath. (Raslavich, Benjamin) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Brianna Spath. Related case(s): No (Raslavich, Benjamin) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by Benjamin W. Raslavich on behalf of Brianna Spath. Lead Counsel: Benjamin W. Raslavich. (Raslavich, Benjamin) |
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant has removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). The state court 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). To establish the amount in controversy, Defendant insists that at least one unnamed putative class member has a claim for statutory damages that exceeds $75,000. However, the case cited by Defendant, Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000), did not squarely hold that unnamed class members' damages could be used to establish the amount in controversy. More importantly, the Supreme Court subsequently held "where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified in the statute setting forth the requirements for diversity jurisdiction." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005). "This language clearly suggests that at least one class representative or named plaintiff must meet the amount-in-controversy requirement before supplemental jurisdiction [over other class members' claims] can arise." Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. Tmesys, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1244 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (rejecting argument that "the amount-in-controversy requirement of 1332(a) can be satisfied by the claims of an unnamed class member"); see also Rosmer v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110, 114 (4th Cir. 2001) ("Our view, respectfully, is that 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction in diversity class actions, so long as one named plaintiff has a claim giving a federal court original jurisdiction."). Furthermore, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's attorney's fees "could easily exceed $75,000 over the life of this lawsuit." "[O]nly the attorney's fees incurred up to the time of removal may be included in the amount in controversy." McLawhorn v. GEICO Indem. Co., No. 8:17-cv-156-VMC-AEP, 2017 WL 1277744, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2017). And Defendant has not presented evidence as to the amount of attorney's fees Plaintiff incurred prior to removal. Thus, Defendant has not established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by December 12, 2022. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/6/2022. (DMD)
|
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. New case number: 8:22-cv-2755-VMC-CPT. (SJB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 13th Judicial Circuit In and For Hillsborough County, Florida, case number 2022-CA-009221 filed in State Court on 11/02/2022. Filing fee $402, receipt number AFLMDC-20263767 filed by Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. (Attachments: #1 State Court COMPLAINT, #2 State Court Other Documents Return of Service Affidavit, #3 State Court Other Documents Motion for Extension, #4 State Court Other Documents Order Granting Extension, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Randles, Theodore) Modified on 12/5/2022 (KME). |
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.
