Oddo v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company
| Michael Oddo |
| Amica Mutual Insurance Company |
| 8:2023cv02421 |
| October 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Virginia M Hernandez Covington |
| Sean P Flynn |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER: On November 2, 2023, the Court explained to Amica Mutual Insurance Company that the notice of removal was insufficient to establish that there is diversity jurisdiction in this case. (Doc. # 11). The notice did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, the Court provided Amica with an opportunity to show that the amount in controversy exceeds this value by November 15, 2023. (Id.). Amica submitted additional information to support the amount in controversy requirement on November 8, 2023. (Doc. #13). However, this information is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement. Amica acknowledges that Plaintiff has only incurred $35,449.46 in medical expenses to date, excluding costs incurred at HCA Trinity Hospital, for which Amica does not have medical bills. (Id. at 2-3). Amica provides estimates of future medical expenses associated with two medical procedures that Plaintiff's medical providers have recommended, totally approximately $79,000. (Id.). However, Amica does not provide evidence to demonstrate that these procedures have been scheduled or that they are medically necessary. "[F]uture medical expenses...are too speculative to include in the Court's [amount in controversy] calculation." Ulrich v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 8:22-CV-2541-VMC-AAS, 2022 WL 17336183, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2022). In particular, the Court excludes medical costs when there is "no evidence that Plaintiff has scheduled the procedure or that the procedure is medically necessary." Id. ("And the Court does not credit the estimated cost of future spinal injections included in the civil remedy notice because there is no evidence that Plaintiff has scheduled the procedure or that the procedure is medically necessary."); see Pennington v. Covidien LP, No. 8:19-cv-273-VMC-AAS, 2019 WL 479473, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019) (excluding future medical expenses where there was no evidence that the "surgery ha[d] been scheduled yet" nor "that th[e] surgery [was] necessary"). Therefore, the information provided does not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County, Florida. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/17/2023. (JAK)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE re 11 Order directing compliance response to court order by Amica Mutual Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Demand, #2 Exhibit 2 - Orthobiologics, #3 Exhibit 3 - Synergy Health Bill, #4 Exhibit 4 - Impact Medical Group Bill, #5 Exhibit 5 - Trinity Medical Associates, #6 Exhibit 6 - Trinity Chiropractic, #7 Exhibit 7 - Impact Surgical, #8 Exhibit 8 - Tower Radiology Bill, #9 Exhibit 9 - ADCO Medical Bill, #10 Exhibit 10 - TGH Urgent Care, #11 Exhibit 11 - West Pasco Chiropractic, #12 Exhibit 12 - HCA Trinity Hospital)(Stranzl, Benjamin) |
|
Filing 12
ENDORSED ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, and by November 17, 2023, 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 11/2/2023. (JAK)
|
|
Filing 11
ENDORSED ORDER: On October 24, 2023, Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company 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). Defendant asserts that "[i]t is reasonable for this Court to infer, or otherwise deduce, that the Plaintiff...will be asking a jury for far in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold." (Doc. # 1 at 5-6). They support this assertion in part through a demand letter that states that Plaintiff has already incurred $21,180.46 in medical expenses and estimates that Plaintiff will incur approximately $35,000 to receive an additional procedure in the future. (Id. at 4). These costs total $56,180.46. (Id.). Defendant has not submitted medical records or bills in support of these values, though has noted that these can be provided upon request. (Id. at 6). Defendant further states that the amount in controversy will be met as Plaintiff is seeking damages for "(1) bodily injury resulting in past and future medical expenses, (2) past and future pain and suffering, (3) disability, (4) disfigurement, (5) mental anguish, (6) loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, (7) expense of hospitalization, (8) medical and nursing care and treatment, (9) loss of ability to earn money, (10) aggravation of a previously existing condition, and (11) other legal damages as are yet undetermined." (Id. at 4-5). The information provided does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In particular, "damages based on future loss of income, future medical expenses, or pain and suffering are too speculative to include in the Court's [amount in controversy] calculation." Ulrich v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 8:22-CV-2541-VMC-AAS, 2022 WL 17336183, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2022); see Pennington v. Covidien LP, No. 8:19-cv-273-VMC-AAS, 2019 WL 479473, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019) (excluding lost wages and pain and suffering damages from the amount in controversy calculation because the Court "would [] be required to engage in rank speculation to ascribe any monetary value to these damages"). Accordingly, Defendant is directed to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by November 15, 2023. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/2/2023. (JAK)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by David Michael Murray on behalf of Michael Oddo. Lead Counsel: David M. Murray, Esq. (Murray, David) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by Benjamin Stephen Stranzl on behalf of Amica Mutual Insurance Company. Lead Counsel: Benjamin S. Stranzl. (Stranzl, Benjamin) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL of Local Rule 2.02(a), which states, "The first paper filed on behalf of a party must designate only one lead counsel who - unless the party changes the designation - remains lead counsel throughout the action." Counsel must file a Notice of Lead Counsel Designation identifying lead counsel. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (GL) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Local Rule 3.03, which requires each party to file a disclosure statement. Counsel must make their disclosures using the standard court form. The Disclosure Statement form can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (MEJ) |
| Filing 6 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 or elsewhere. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (MEJ) |
| Filing 5 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). (MEJ) |
|
Filing 4
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 10/26/2023. (MEJ)
|
| Filing 3 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). (MEJ) |
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn. New case number: 8:23-cv-02421-VMC-SPF. (JG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Sixth Judicial Circuit, case number 23-CA-004451 filed in State Court on 09/28/2023. Filing fee $402, receipt number AFLMDC-21388206 filed by Amica Mutual Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 State Court COMPLAINT, #2 State Court ANSWER, #3 State Court Docket Sheet, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Stranzl, Benjamin) |
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
| Search for this case: Oddo v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Michael Oddo | |
| Represented By: | David Michael Murray |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Amica Mutual Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Benjamin Stephen Stranzl |
| Represented By: | Joshua Vaughn |
| Represented By: | Nicolas E. Ferreiro |
| 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.
