UNDERWOOD
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
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.
Underwood sued Home Depot for injuries sustained when a Home Depot employee operating a forklift crashed into a parked truck containing Underwood. Home Depot removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and Underwood moved to remand, arguing that Home Depot failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Home Depot established the requisite amount in controversy. While a civil cover sheet and demand letter alone are generally insufficient to establish an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, Home Depot's supplementation of the notice of removal with medical bills totaling over $100,000 satisfied this requirement.
[1] A civil cover sheet and a settlement demand letter, without more, are generally insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for purposes of f…
[2] Medical bills appended to a notice of removal, totaling over $100,000, can be considered in addition to a civil cover sheet and demand letter to establish the amount in c…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Without more, a civil cover sheet and a demand letter are generally insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”
Establishes the general rule that removal notices cannot rely solely on cover sheets and demand letters to prove jurisdictional amount
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnderwood was sitting in a parked truck when a Home Depot employee driving a forklift crashed into it, causing injuries to Underwood. Home Depot remov…
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.
Lagiguan Underwood alleges that a Home Depot employee driving a forklift "crashed" into a parked truck in which Underwood sat and that the crash injured Underwood. Home Depot removes (Doc. 1) the action. Underwoods moves (Doc. 8) to remand, and Home Depot responds (Doc. 11) in opposition. Underwood contends that, because the notice of removal cites a civil cover sheet and a settlement demand to establish the amount in controversy, Home Depot failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Without more, a civil cover sheet and a demand letter are generally insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2020 WL 7396934, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (Badalamenti, J.); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., 2010 WL 2889218 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), and quoting Standridge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 252, 256–57 (N.D. Ga. 1996)); Fields v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 WL
2705424 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (Fawsett, C.J.). But in addition to the cover sheet and demand, Home Depot appends to the notice of removal Underwood's medical bills that allegedly resulted from the crash. The medical bills total more than $100,000.
The motion (Doc. 8) to remand is DENIED. No later than MAY 28, 2024, the parties must submit a case management report in accord with Local Rule 3.02.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 14, 2024.
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 2 -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Underwood v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 2889218 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…over sheet and a demand letter are generally insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2020 WL 7396934, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (Badalamenti, J.); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., 2010 WL 2889218 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), and quoting Standridge v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 252, 256–57 (N.D. Ga. 1996)); Fields v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2705424 (M.D. Fla…
-
Perez v. Shanks (M.D. Fla. 2025)…90539, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010) (stating that demand letters and settlement offers “do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction”); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., No. 8:10- cv-1582-SDM-EAJ, 2010 WL 2889218, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2010) (same). Rather, courts evaluate whether demand letters “‘reflect puffing and posturing’” or “whether they provide `specific information to support the plaintiff’s claim for damages.'” Lamb, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2 (qu…
-
Hennessy v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…90539, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010) (stating that demand letters and settlement offers “do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction”); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., No. 8:10- cv-1582-SDM-E J, 2010 WL 2889218, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2010) (same). Rather, courts evaluate whether demand letters “‘reflect puffing and posturing’” or “whether they provide `specific information to support the plaintiff’s claim for damages.'" Lamb, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2 (qu…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Underwood v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 2889218 (M.D. Fla. 2024)