Balasis v. McGivern et al
| James J. Balasis |
| Cynthia A. McGivern, South County Construction Company, Inc. and Cynthia Ann McGivern |
| 4:2019cv10202 |
| November 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT as to 8 Order Remanding Case to State Court, #9 Transmittal Letter Sent. (kpe) |
| Filing 9 Transmittal Letter Sent with Order Remanding Case to State Court to: 16th Judicial Circuit Court. State Court Case Number: 2019-CA-000925-K (kpe) |
Filing 8
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On November 14, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. #1 . Therein, Defendants asserted that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity. Id. However, it was not apparent to the Court that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. Therefore, on November 18, 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." 7 . Further, the Court ordered that the "Amended Notice of Removal or other briefing shall be filed no later than November 25, 2019." Id. As the Court stated in the Order to Show Cause 7 , 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). "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). "[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). "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, Defendants did not respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause and therefore have not met their burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Notice of Removal, 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 cause. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/27/2019. (jm02)
|
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Cynthia Ann McGivern and South County Construction Company, Inc.'s Notice of Removal. #1 . Therein, Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Id. However, it is not apparent to the Court from the Notice of Removal 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 1319-20 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that Plaintiff is only seeking damages in excess of $15,000. [1-2]. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants state that "Plaintiff has incurred in excess of $72,000 in alleged accident-related medical expenses" and that "[t]he additional cost of physical therapy alone, in conjunction with Plaintiff's current medical expenses, will undoubtedly exceed the amount in controversy requirement," but provides no support for this assertion. #1 at 3. This is insufficient to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to refile its Notice of Removal attaching evidence of an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. In the alternative, Defendants may 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. An Amended Notice of Removal or other briefing shall be filed no later than November 25, 2019. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/18/2019. (mh01)
|
| Filing 6 Notice of Compliance of Filing Fees $400.00, receipt number 113C-12152336 re 5 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case (Goldberg, Joseph) |
| Filing 5 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. Filing fees not paid. Filer is instructed to file a Notice of Compliance of Filing Fee, and electronically pay the correct fees of $400.00 within 24 hours of this notice. (jc) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by Cynthia Ann McGivern re 3 Clerk's Notice of Filing Deficiency Re: #1 Notice of Removal. Case Not Filed with Required Filing Fees of $400.00 (Goldberg, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice of Filing Deficiency Re: #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), filed by Cynthia Ann McGivern. Case not filed with required filing fees of $400.00_, and the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. (kpe) |
| 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. (kpe) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - James J. Balasis v. Cynthia A. McGivern, et. al.) Filing fee $400.00. IFP Filed, filed by Cynthia A. McGivern. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Egitto, Dennis) (kpe). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2019: #2 State Court Complaint/Other State Court Record) (kpe). |
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 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.
