ZAMBRANO
v.
WALMART STORES EAST, LP.
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 plaintiff cannot defeat subject matter jurisdiction by reducing her claim after removal or by relying on future reductions like insurance setoffs.
Plaintiff sued for negligence in state court, and Defendant removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the amount in …
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 Removal Of Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Norma Zambrano’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 16), along with Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP’s opposition (Doc. 17). This is a slip-and-fall negligence action that started in state court. Defendant timely removed based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). But Plaintiff moves to return to state court. A defendant may remove a civil case from state court if it can show diversity jurisdiction (by a preponderance of the evidence) as of the date of removal. See Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Diversity jurisdiction exists if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff challenges the amount in controversy prong only. According to Plaintiff, the amount in controversy is not facially apparent from the Amended Complaint. So, she relies on Florida law to assert that her
total past medical bills exclude setoffs, other adjustments, and liens that may eliminate most of medical bills’ balances. Defendant responds that most of Plaintiff’s past medical bills totaling $68,734.38 were outstanding upon removal. Defendant also notes that Plaintiff’s health insurance has only paid
$8.39 and adjusted $16.61. (Doc. 17, ¶ 15). And past medical bills are not all that’s in play. Defendant also points to Plaintiff’s claim for $12,000 in lost wages and a pre-suit settlement demand to satisfy the jurisdictional amount. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 27-29).
The Court need not look much past the settled principle that a plaintiff cannot defeat subject matter jurisdiction by reducing her claim after removal or expecting a future reduction in recoverable damages. Stramiello v. Petsmart, Inc., No. 810-CV-659-T-33TGW, 2010 WL 2136550, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2010) (citations omitted). In other words, a plaintiff cannot use a setoff for insurance reimbursement of medical expenses to defeat the amount in controversy requirement for removal. See id. Plaintiff tries to sidestep this principle with Jackson v. St. Jude Med.
Neuromodulation Div., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014). But Jackson differs because most of plaintiff’s medical care had been paid before removal—only $10,183.93 remained unpaid.! Here, most of Plaintiffs past medical bills were outstanding at the time of removal. Defendant has thus shown the minimum threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Plaintiff Norma Zambrano’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 16) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November1, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record