EVANSTON PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
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 must supplement its notice of removal because it failed to adequately establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant removed an insurance coverage action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant asserted the amount in controversy exce…
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 Burden Of Proof For Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company'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).
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.
This is an insurance-coverage action arising out of an underlying tort action. To establish the amount in controversy, Defendant broadly asserts “the amount at issue in the Tort Action, together with the cost to defend [Plaintiff] against Seldon's negligent security claim, is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." (Doc. 1 [fn 1]). But it offers nothing to support this assertion. So the Court is not satisfied that Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
On or before July 21, 2025, Defendant must SUPPLEMENT its Notice of Removal consistent with this Order. Failure to do so will result in remand without further notice.
2
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 7, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
[fn 1]: The Court assumes "Doc. 1" refers to the Notice of Removal.
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)
- 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)