Alvarado v. Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions
| Andres Alvarado |
| Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation |
| 8:2023cv02896 |
| December 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Virginia M Hernandez Covington |
| Amanda Arnold Sansone |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER: Based on Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation's response to the Court's order to provide additional information about the amount in controversy (Doc. #13) and the attached Plaintiff's Stipulation on Damages (Doc. # 13-1), this case is remanded. The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, terminate any previously scheduled deadlines, and thereafter close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/3/2024. (JAK)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE re 7 Order directing compliance filed by Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Marshall, Fred) |
| Filing 12 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 11
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 12/20/2023. (MEJ)
|
| Filing 10 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 9
ENDORSED ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, and by January 24, 2024, 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 12/19/2023. (JAK)
|
|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER granting Defendant's Time-Sensitive Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. (Doc. #6). Defendant's responsive pleading is now due by January 10, 2024. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/19/2023. (JAK)
|
|
Filing 7
ENDORSED ORDER: On December 18, 2023, Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). However, 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, 1209 (11th Cir. 2007). Cognizant argues that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Plaintiff is claiming, among other things, that the misconduct has caused him to suffer "extreme forms of psychiatric harm" and "multiple mental health conditions." (Doc. # 1 at 7; Doc. # 1-1 at 4). Cognizant also notes that Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for "loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity[, and]...loss of income." (Doc. # 1 at 8; Doc. # 1-1 at 5). However, Cognizant provides no factual support for the value of the damages, such as medical bills or lost wages. Therefore, this information 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[ or] future 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); 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 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"). Further, Cognizant highlights that, in a prior, related case, Plaintiff alleged "severe Post-Traumatic Stress, anxiety, depression, acute stress and other mental illnesses," "as well as associated physical injuries." (Doc. # 1 at 7). Cognizant also highlights that Plaintiff previously alleged that he will have "continual mental health and wellness issues for the rest of [his life]." (Id. at 7-8). However, since these statements were not included in Plaintiff's Complaint in this case, the Court cannot rely on them to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This is particularly true as it is not yet clear whether Plaintiff will claim these same forms of harm in this case. Accordingly, Cognizant is directed to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by January 2, 2024. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/19/2023. (JAK)
|
| Filing 6 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Notice of Removal (Time-Sensitive) by Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation. (Marshall, Fred) |
| Filing 5 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. New case number: 8:23-cv-2896-VMC-AAS. (AET) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions. Related case(s): Yes (Marshall, Fred) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions identifying Corporate Parent Cognizant Domestic Holdings Corporation, Corporate Parent Cognizant Technology Corporation Solutions for Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions. (Marshall, Fred) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by Fred Conwell Marshall, II on behalf of Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions. Lead Counsel: Tori C. Simmons. (Marshall, Fred) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Circuit Court Hillsborough County, case number 23-CA-016611 filed in State Court on 11/14/2023. Filing fee $405, receipt number AFLMDC-21576526 filed by Cognizant Technology U.S. Corporation Solutions. (Attachments: #1 State Court COMPLAINT, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 State Court Other Documents, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Marshall, Fred) |
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.
