ZAIDAN
v.
EAN HOLDINGS, LLC
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 granted plaintiffs' motion to remand a diversity jurisdiction case to state court, finding that the defendant failed to establish the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000 as required for federal jurisdiction. The defendant's untimely response was treated as unopposed.
The motion to remand is granted because defendant failed to establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000, thereby failing to meet the burden of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction. The case is remanded to state court.
[1] A motion is subject to treatment as unopposed when a party fails to timely respond and does not seek leave to file a response out of time.
[2] Settlement offers do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Settlement offers do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”
Establishes the legal standard that settlement offers alone cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a lawsuit in state court against Defendant Alexander Benjamin Johnson. Defendant removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs filed …
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 Motion To Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand/Opposition to Defendants' Petition for Removal (the "Motion"), filed January 10, 2024. (Doc. 17.) On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed an untimely Response in opposition to the Motion. (Doc. 25). The Motion is ripe for review.
The Local Rules state that "[a] party may respond to a motion within fourteen days after service of the motion," unless the motion is a motion to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, to exclude or limit expert testimony, to certify a class, for a new trial, or to amend a judgment. Local Rule 3.01(c). Local Rule 3.01(c) further states: “If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed." Id. Therefore, since Defendant's Response to the Motion was untimely, and Defendant did not seek leave to file a response out of time, the Court will treat the Motion as unopposed.
Upon review of the Motion and the pre-suit demand letter included in the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1), and without timely opposition from Defendant, the undersigned finds that Defendant has not established that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. See Lamb v. State Farm Fire Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 3:10-cv-615- J-32JRK, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143298, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010) (“Settlement offers do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”). Therefore, Defendant has not met the burden to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the dispute.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Case No. 2023-CA-004018-O. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending deadlines and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 8, 2024.