JORGE LUIS CASTILLO REYES
v.
AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a defendant's conclusory assertion of damages based on undifferentiated, voluminous exhibits is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for removal.
[1] A conclusory demand in a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, without supporting documentation, does not establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdictio…
[2] A defendant seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a conclusory demand in a NOI, without supporting documentation, does not prove the amount in controversy.”
Establishes that a plaintiff's notice of intent to litigate with only conclusory damage demands is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction for removal purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed suit, and Defendant removed the case. The court ordered Defendant to show cause why the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Defend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 9, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Defendant American Strategic Insurance Corp. to supplement its notice of removal to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 5). Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Removal, which does not cure the problem. (Doc. 15). Therefore, for the following reasons, the Court remands this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In its Order, the Court explained that Defendant's Notice of Removal relies on Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (“NOI") to establish diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). But a conclusory demand in a NOI, without supporting documentation, does not prove the amount in controversy. Id. (citing Collins v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:16-CV-280-T-24-МАР, 2016 WL 890089, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2016) (collecting cases)).
In the Amended Notice of Removal, Defendant merely states:
Here, the “estimate of damages” reference in the NOIs are based upon not only the estimates from Plaintiffs' public adjuster but also itemized invoices for services from various mitigation entities for work performed, for which ASI denies liability. See Composite Exhibit 4.
(Doc. 15 at 4). Defendant conclusorily states that the mitigation invoices satisfy the amount in controversy. (Id.). Defendant ignores the fact that Exhibit 4 is 312 undifferentiated pages long. There is no index. There is no table of contents. Some pages are displayed sideways. Defendant does not cite any page number(s) referring the Court to a breakdown of the calculation of damages. Apparently, Defendant expects the Court to sift through hundreds of pages of invoices, determine the total charges for work, add them, and decide on its own whether they exceed $75,000. In short, Defendant's Amended Notice of Removal does nothing to aid the Court in determining that the amount in controversy has been met.
The Court is under no obligation to do the work of manufacturing the amount in controversy for Defendant. After all,
"judges are not archaeologists. They need not excavate masses of papers in search of revealing tidbits—not only because the rules of procedure place the burden on the litigants, but also because their time is scarce.” Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F. 3d 660, 662–63 (7th Cir. 1994). They need not endeavor to “fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud." U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F. 3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).
2
Lowrance v. Berryhill, No. 4:18-CV-89, 2019 WL 1085187, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2019). Defendant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy has been met. Because the Court cannot determine that it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter, the action is remanded.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. This action is REMANDED to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 15, 2026.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3