PARKER-MERRILL
v.
TARGET CORPORATION
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 establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendant Target Corporation removed a case to federal court, arguing the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The plaintiff had not pled a specifi…
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 Federalism Concerns cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s response (Doc. 10) to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7). Target tried to show the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum. But the Court holds it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and remands. Removal is proper when the district court has original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The jurisdictional minimum in federal court is $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Where, as here, the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the
Court to assume it is an amount that exceeds $75,000 simply because Parker- Merrill is young and will probably work for many years. But reliance on those damages here is no more than “star gazing.” See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F. 3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010) (allowing reasonable inferences based on evidence). The Court has no idea how long Parker-Merrill was out of work or how her injuries impacted future earnings. In fact, the Court doesn’t even know what Parker-Merrill does for a living. This is important because a bum knee might not dent a lawyer’s future earnings much, but it could devastate a landscaper’s. And while Target does not make new argument about the settlement demand, the last Order explained why it is not enough alone. Finally, Target notes it removed to be safe, thinking the discovery and settlement demand might trigger the thirty-day clock to remove. Because the Court finds those documents insufficient, they are not an “other paper” under the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(8). If down the road it becomes clear the case is removable, perhaps Target can do so. Until then, Target failed to carry its burden to show this case meets the amount-in-controversy requirement. So the Court remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that Court. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions or deadlines and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 29, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Williams v. Best BUY Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)