CAIN
v.
LOWES HOME CENTERS, 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 held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a slip-and-fall case in state court, which the defendant removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant was o…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Amount In Controversy cases and more on FLexlaw
This slip-and-fall case is before the Court on Defendant’s jurisdictional supplement. (Doc. 11). Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 1 ¶ 8) and the Court directed Defendant to supplement its citizenship and amount in controversy allegations (Doc. 6). Defendant has adequately alleged that the parties are diverse. See (Doc. 11 at 1–2). However, Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Friedman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 410 F. 3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s evidence of the amount in controversy includes (1) Plaintiff’s unsupported request for attorneys’ fees, (2) Plaintiff’s broad allegations regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries, (3) $28,430.79 in incurred medical expenses, (4) the fact that Plaintiff had a surgery on his wrist, (5) Plaintiff’s continuing medical treatment, and (6) Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet. (Doc. 11 at 3– 4); see also (Docs. 11-5, 11-6).
“Although generally excluded from the calculation, ‘[w]hen a statute authorizes the recovery of attorney’s fees, a reasonable amount of those fees is included in the amount in controversy.’” Scott v. Walmart, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1278 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (quoting Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F. 3d
1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff has not alleged any entitlement to attorneys’ fees in the complaint; thus, the Court will not consider any attorneys’ fees in determining the amount in controversy. Incurred medical expenses are strong evidence of the amount in controversy, see S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F. 3d 1312, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 2014), but Defendant has not offered any evidence regarding the cost of Plaintiff’s surgery, Plaintiff’s future medical expenses, or the nature of Plaintiff’s future medical treatment. Finally, civil cover sheets are used for “data collection and clerical processing
purposes only,” Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No. 2:20-CV-309-JLB-NPM, 2020 WL 7396934, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2020) (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.997), and are not indicative of the amount in controversy absent additional facts.1 See Durshimer v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:20-CV-2014-T-33AEP, 2020
Oa > Cimotheg Corrig oN (YS) TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN <=es" —*United States District Judge ckm Copies: Counsel of record Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County
“permanent or continuing.” (Doc. 21, 3:22-cv-76-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla. 2022)). In this case, the medical expenses, broad allegations, and the civil cover sheet are insufficient to ascertain the amount in controversy.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2014)