CAREW

v.

DESILET

Before the Court are the parties’ responses to the Court’s Order to Show Cause entered on February 3, 2021. (Docs. 14 & 15). Upon review, Defendant Tracey Desilet has not met her burden to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties have challenged its existence. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F. 3d 1277, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2001). This case was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), which provides that “[a]ny civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state . . . may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending,” id. § 1441(d); (Doc. 1). The basis for jurisdiction was Defendant Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s status as a “foreign state.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a) and (b). Shortly after this case was removed, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, informing the Court that all claims against that defendant were dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 5; Doc. 12). Following a voluntary dismissal of a foreign state upon which jurisdiction is based under § 1441(d), “the question of a remand lies in the sound discretion of the court.” Hinkle’s Jeep Sales, Inc. v. Villa Enters., Inc., 90 F.R.D. 49, 52 (S.D. Fla. 1981). A court should consider judicial economy in remanding a case, especially whether the case is likely to return to federal court following remand. Id. Here, the foreign state has been dismissed with prejudice foreclosing any further claims related to this occurrence, and the Court concluded that the interests of judicial economy would be served by remanding absent a showing of another basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 13).

Where a defendant removes an action from state court to federal court, the defendant “bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant must present “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and if questioned, present evidence establishing that the amount is met. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87–89 (2014). “The absence of factual allegations pertinent to the existence of jurisdiction is dispositive and, in such absence, the existence of jurisdiction should not be divined by looking to the stars.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F. 3d 1184, 1215 (11th Cir. 2007).

Here, Defendant Desilet fails to meet that burden. In response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Defendant alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction as the two parties are diverse¹ and Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75,000. (Doc. 14).

Specifically, Defendant argues that, even though Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges damages only in excess of $30,000, this Court should consider demand letters from Plaintiffs each seeking $50,000 and the state court civil cover sheet estimating that the amount of the claim is “over $100,000.00.” (Doc. 14, at 3). These two items are insufficient.

“When referencing a demand letter to ascertain the amount in controversy, courts analyze ‘whether demand letters merely reflect puffing and posturing or whether they provide specific information to support the plaintiff’s claim for damages.’ ” Boyd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:15–cv–1965–Orl–22TBS, 2015 WL 12838805, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2015) (quoting Moser v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 8:14–cv–3121– CEH–TWG, 2015 WL 628961, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2015)); see also Lucas v. USAA

Cas. Ins. Co., 716 F. App’x 866, 867 n.1 (11th Cir. 2017) (considering as evidence that the amount in controversy was met a demand letter that sought the policy limit and detailed various expenses exceeding $75,000). If a demand letter contains a reasonable assessment of the value of the claim—for example, by delineating medical bills—then

“footy Ie ented Mag he yn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge