Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perez v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

October 24, 2019

Lilia Perez, Plaintiff,
v.
Scottsdale Insurance Company, Defendant.

          OMNIBUS ORDER

          Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's partial[1] motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 3) and the Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court (ECF No. 8.) The motions are fully briefed and ripe for the court's review. Upon review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 8) and grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 3.)

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Lilia Perez filed a nine-count complaint in state court against Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company for property damage following a plumbing leak that occurred on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 3 at ¶ 1.) On July 3, 2019, the Defendant filed its notice of removal. (ECF No. 1.)

         On July 10, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 3) On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. (ECF No. 8.) Both motions are now before this Court.

         II. Legal Standard

         When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all of the complaint's allegations as true, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). A pleading need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). A plaintiff must articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Thus, a pleading that offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not survive dismissal. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

         III. Analysis

         A. Motion to Remand

         The Court must first consider the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court (ECF No. 8) to ensure that it has jurisdiction over this case. The Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded because the Defendant is unable to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 to meet the court's jurisdictional requirements. In response, the Defendant argues that it has sufficiently alleged damages in the amount of $68, 401.32 and $32, 500 in attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 14.) Upon careful review, the Court agrees with the Defendant.

         Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 239 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003). A civil action may be removed from state court to federal district court if the action is within the “original jurisdiction” of the federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original jurisdiction exists when a civil action raises a federal question, or where the action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Scottsdale removed this action based upon diversity jurisdiction and therefore has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that federal jurisdiction exists. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n.12 (11th Cir. 2009)).

         The Plaintiff did not claim a specific amount of damages in her complaint and simply alleges that damages exceed $15, 000. As a result, Scottsdale must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement of $75, 000. See Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751.

         i. Amount in Controversy

         Scottsdale submitted a $68, 401.32 estimate of damages to meet the amount in controversy. (DE 1-3.) The estimate of damages was issued by the Plaintiff's public adjuster as a “supplemental request for damages” on November 12, 2018. (Id.) The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant cannot ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.