MENGEL
v.
REY
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 the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
The defendant removed a state court action to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs' initial disclosures showed past medical …
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 Aggregation Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
and REBECCA JANE MENGEL, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT JOSEPH REY, Defendant. Case No.: 2:25-cv-787-SPC-KCD
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Scott Joseph Rey's Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1). For the reasons outlined below, Defendant must supplement the Notice.
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The existence of federal jurisdiction is tested at the time of removal.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). And “a removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction." Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F. 3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
This case involves a motor-vehicle accident. Defendant removed this action by invoking diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the amount in controversy is questionable.
To establish the amount in controversy, Defendant cites Plaintiffs' initial disclosures filed in state court, which indicate Plaintiff Rebecca Mengel suffered $53,565.74 in past medical damages, and Plaintiff Matthew Mangel suffered $18,725.92 in past medical damages. (Docs. 1-1, 1-9 at 5-6). But neither of these amounts exceeds $75,000, and the amounts cannot be aggregated to satisfy the amount in controversy. See Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F. 3d 1184, 1198 n.31 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1332(a)'s amount in controversy requirement does not allow the claims of multiple plaintiffs to be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional threshold[.]" (citation omitted)). And while Defendant also notes both Plaintiffs seek future medicals and noneconomic damages, their initial disclosures simply note that the sought amount of such damages is “TBD.” (Doc. 1-9 at 4). Such speculative damages are insufficient to establish jurisdiction. See Lima v. Litfin, No. 8:21-CV-1722- VMC-TGW, 2021 WL 3185966, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2021) (explaining “the
2
mere possibility of future treatment remains too speculative” to satisfy the amount in controversy).
The Court finds that Defendant fails to meet his burden of establishing the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
On or before September 18, 2025, Defendant must SUPPLEMENT his Notice of Removal consistent with this Order. Failure to do so will result in remand without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 4, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Leonard v. Enter. Rent A CAR, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008)