NIETER
v.
HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.
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.
A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant removed a premises-liability action to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Defendant relied solely on a one-million-dollar propo…
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 Complete Diversity Of Citizenship cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant Holiday CVS, L.L.C.'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). Defendant removed this premises-liability 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 dubious at best.
To establish the amount in controversy, Defendant relies exclusively on a one-million-dollar Proposal for Settlement that Plaintiff served in state court. (Doc. 1-2). That's it. [fn 1] But a proposal for settlement—standing alone—does not establish the amount in controversy. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 6:18-CV-554-ORL-37DCI, 2018 WL 3761045, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3545421 (July 24, 2018). And the proposal itself “lacks any specific information to explain why [one-million dollars] is a reasonable assessment of the value of [Plaintiffs] claim, nor does the record in this case support such a conclusion.” Hamilton v. Crete Carrier Corp., No. 3:24-CV-574-MMH-MCR, 2024 WL 3948869, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2024) (emphasis original) (finding a bare proposal for settlement did little to establish the amount in controversy). This suggests Plaintiff's settlement demand is nothing more than puffery. See Auclair v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 2:21- CV-18-JLB-MRM, 2021 WL 1661016, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021) (explaining that courts draw a distinction between “settlement offers steeped in puffery and posturing” and “those yielding information and a reasonable
assessment of value”). Without more, 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 March 6, 2025, Defendant must SUPPLEMENT its 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 February 20, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
[fn 1]: In a prior attempt at removing this action, Defendant relied on a civil cover sheet to establish the amount in controversy. But as the Court advised Defendant then, “the civil cover sheet is not a verified pleading or material evidence on the amount in controversy." Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C, No. 2:24-CV-949-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL 4956662, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2024).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 2018 WL 3761045 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…on-dollar Proposal for Settlement that Plaintiff served in state court. (Doc. 1-2). That's it.¹ But a proposal for settlement—standing alone-does not establish the amount in controversy. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 6:18-CV-554-ORL-37DCI, 2018 WL 3761045, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3545421 (July 24, 2018). And the proposal itself “lacks any specific information to explain why [one-million dollars] is a reasonable assessment of the value of [Plaintiffs]…1 / 4
-
McCoy v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)…t 1–2; Proposal for Settlement) at ¶ 4. However, a proposal for settlement, standing alone, “is not enough to satisfy [a] [d]efendant's burden” of establishing the amount in controversy. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 6:18-cv-554-Orl-37DCI, 2018 WL 3761045, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2018) (recommending that the case be remanded to state court, despite an offer for judgment which exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, where the defendant “provided the [c]ourt with no information whatsoever regarding the…1 / 2
-
Herring v. Yelm (M.D. Fla. 2025)…n 768.79 is entitled to more weight than a pre-suit demand,” such an offer, standing alone, “is not enough to satisfy [a] [d]efendant's burden" of establishing the amount in controversy. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 6:18-cv-554-Orl-37DCI, 2018 WL 3761045, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2018) (recommending that the case be remanded to state court, despite an offer for judgment which exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, where the defendant "provided the [c]ourt with no information whatsoever regarding the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 2018 WL 3761045 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Crawford v. Rodriguez de Hernandez (M.D. Fla. 2025)