United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REMAND
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Karla
Soares' (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand, ECF
No.  (“Motion”). Defendant Scottsdale
Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed its
Response in Opposition, ECF No. 
(“Response”), to which Plaintiff did not reply.
The Court has considered the Motion, the Response, the record
in this case, the applicable law and is otherwise fully
advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
filed her Complaint in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of
contract based on an insurance policy issued by Defendant.
ECF No. [5-1] at 4-5. Plaintiff alleged that the damages in
this action were in excess of $15, 000.00, exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Id. at 4.
In addition to damages, the Complaint sought to recover
attorney's fees pursuant to Florida Statutes, §
627.428(1). Id. at 5.
11, 2019, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. . Plaintiff now files
the instant Motion seeking to remand the action back to state
court, arguing a lack of diversity jurisdiction because the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75, 000.00. ECF No.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) vests a district court with subject
matter jurisdiction when the parties are diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. Id. A
party may remove the action from state court to federal court
if the action is within the federal court's subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal
jurisdiction.” Coffey v. Nationstar Mortg.,
LLC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2014).
“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 jurisdiction requirement.”
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744,
752 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Further, in determining whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists, the Court must focus on the amount in
controversy at the time of removal, not at any later
point. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751 (citations omitted);
E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F.Supp.3d
1356, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “To determine whether this
standard is met, a court first examines whether ‘it is
facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
requirement.'” Miedema v. Maytag Corp.,
450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Williams v.
Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001)), abrogated on other grounds by Dudley v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014). “If the
jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the
complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and
may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at
the time the case was removed.” Id. (quoting
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319).
removing defendant is not required to prove the amount in
controversy beyond all doubt or to banish all uncertainty
about it.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (citations
omitted). “Where, as in this case, the complaint
alleges an unspecified amount of damages, ‘the district
court is not bound by the plaintiff's representations
regarding its claim,' and may review the record for
evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” DO
Rests., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 984 F.Supp.2d
1342, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Roe v. Michelin N.
Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010)).
Moreover, “defendants may submit a wide range of
evidence in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements
of removal, ” including “affidavits,
declarations, or other documentation.” Pretka,
608 F.3d at 755. The Court may also use its judicial
experience and make reasonable inferences and deductions to
determine the amount in controversy. See Roe, 613
F.3d at 1061-62; Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (discussing
the difference between reasonable deductions and inferences
with “conjecture, speculation, or star gazing”);
E.S.Y., Inc., 217 F.Supp.3d at 1360.
this lens, the Court addresses the Motion.
Motion asserts that this case should be remanded back to
state court because the $75, 000.00 amount in controversy
requirement to satisfy diversity jurisdiction has not been
met. However, before examining the jurisdictional issue, the
Court first addresses Defendant's procedural argument
that Plaintiff's Motion failed to comply with Local Rule
Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Local Rule
initial matter, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's Motion
should be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule
7.1(a)(1), which requires “a memorandum of law citing
supporting authorities” to be incorporated into motions
to remand filed before this Court. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(1).
Upon examination, Plaintiff's Motion contains sparse
citations to the applicable provisions of the United States
Code and fails to include any further “memorandum of
law citing supporting authorities, ” as required by
Rule 7.1(a)(1). Id. As such, the Court reemphasizes
the importance of litigants' adherence to its Local Rules
and reminds Plaintiff of the obligation to clearly set forth
a legal basis for any arguments presented through adequate
citations to supporting legal authorities. Phillips v.
Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 244 F.3d 790, ...