AUM REALTY II FL, LLC
v.
VANTAGE RISK SPECIALTY 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 failed to meet its burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction after removal.
Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action in state court, and the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The …
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 Strict Construction Of Removal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company's Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs brought this breach of contract action in state court, and Defendant removed to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). "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). And removal
statutes are strictly construed with doubts resolved for remand. Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F. 3d 909, 912 (11th Cir. 2014). In its Order to Show Cause, the Court expressly told Defendant that its allegations of both parties' citizenship and of the amount in controversy were lacking. (Doc. 15). The Court also pointed out that Defendant's Notice of Removal was silent as to whether Defendant Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company consented to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 15). The Court gave Defendant until July 29, 2024, to supplement its Notice of Removal and warned Defendant that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order will cause this case being remanded without further notice.” (Doc. 15). Defendant has not supplemented its Notice of Removal, so Defendant has not carried its jurisdictional burden.
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. 2
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 2, 2024. 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)
- Leonard v. Enter. Rent A CAR, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Dudley v. ELI Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014)