1127 Washington Key West LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1
Plaintiff: 1127 Washington Key West LLC
Defendant: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1
Case Number: 4:2019cv10135
Filed: August 16, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: K Michael Moore
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 28, 2019 Filing 7 Transmittal Letter Sent with Order of Remand to: 16th Judicial Court, Monroe County, FL. State Court Case Number: 19-CA-000493-K (pes)
August 28, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause. #5 . On August 20, 2019, this Court ordered Defendants to "provide the Court briefing not to exceed five pages on the amount in controversy in this case and whether it comports with the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1332." 3 . The Court ordered Defendants to do so because in their Notice of Removal #1 Defendants asserted that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of the Parties, see 28 U.S.C. 1332, however, it was not apparent to the Court that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As the Court stated in the Order to Show Cause 3 , if the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the Complaint, the Court should look to the Notice of Removal and may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); see also McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). "[C]onclusory allegation[s] in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, [are] insufficient to meet the defendant's burden." Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319-20 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $15,000. [1-2]. In the Response to Order to Show Cause, Defendants state that they have a "good faith basis to assert that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000" because " (1) [t]he subject Policy attached to Plaintiff's Complaint has limits that exceed $75,000; (2) Plaintiff alleges property damage as a result of water damage, collapse and/or ensuring losses... which means its damages are extensive; (3) [p]hotographs from Underwriters' engineer reflect rotting and deteriorated floor beam joists in the crawl space under the Property and deflection of the floors; (4) [Defendants'] independent adjuster roughly reported he has seen repair costs for these kinds of damages in the $50,000-$75,000 range or more." #5 at 1-2. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants stated that they "reasonably anticipate" that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. #1 at 2. Further, Defendants stated that they "reasonably anticipate that Plaintiff is seeking disputed damages in excess of $75,000 because [Defendants] reasonably estimate that Plaintiff will claim repair costs exceeding $75,000 to fix Plaintiff's alleged water damage, collapse and/or ensuing losses to the subject Property." Id. None of these examples add any material information not already stated in the Notice of Removal which claimed that the amount in controversy requirement was met because the repair costs could exceed $75,000. "The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction." Parham v. Osmond, No. 8:19-CV-592-T-60SPF, 2019 WL 3822193, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2019). "Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federal courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly." Univ. of So. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). All doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. Id. Here, the evidence provided in the Response to Order to Show Cause is insufficient to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Notice of Removal, Response to Order to Show Cause, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled matter is REMANDED to the 16th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Monroe County, Florida. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/28/2019. (jm01)
August 27, 2019 Filing 5 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 3 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,, by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Smith, Sarah)
August 23, 2019 Filing 4 Underwriters' ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint re the Notice of Removal by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1. (Smith, Sarah)
August 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Notice of Removal. #1 . Therein, Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity, see 28 U.S.C. 1332. Id. However, it is not apparent to the Court that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000. If the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the Complaint, the court should look to the Notice of Removal and may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); see also McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). "A conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden." Williams, 269 F.3d at 131920 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $15,000. [1-2]. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants state that they "reasonably anticipate" that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. #1 at 2. Defendants further state that they "reasonably anticipate that Plaintiff is seeking disputed damages in excess of $75,000 because [Defendants] reasonably estimate that Plaintiff will claim repair costs exceeding $75,000 to fix Plaintiff's alleged water damage, collapse and/or ensuing losses to the subject Property." Id. The only support that Defendants provide for these statements is the assertion that "the Declaration Page to the subject Policy attached and incorporated into Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit A states there is property coverage with dwelling limits of $276,000, other structure limits of $91,000, and additional living expense limits of $27,600." Id. This is insufficient to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by August 27, 2019, why this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Specifically, Defendants shall provide the Court briefing not to exceed five pages on the amount in controversy in this case and whether it comports with the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1332. Defendants are hereby on notice that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the deadline may result in sanctions, including remand. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/20/2019. (eso)
August 16, 2019 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jao)
August 16, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT ) Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-11909395, filed by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1. No Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss Filed. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B)(Smith, Sarah) Modified on 8/16/2019 (jao).

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: 1127 Washington Key West LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No. AS755FL06317-1
Represented By: Sarah Jean Manthey Smith
Represented By: Matthew L. Litsky
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: 1127 Washington Key West LLC
Represented By: Jeremy Fenton Tyler
Represented By: Andrew Fuxa
Represented By: Wayne Wyndham Geyer, Jr.
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?