United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ORDER DENYING “PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
AND FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, WITH INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW”
BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand and for Attorney's Fees and Costs, with
Incorporated Memorandum of Law, ” filed by counsel on
October 24, 2019. (Doc. # 4). Defendant Geico Indemnity
Company filed a response in opposition on November 6, 2019.
(Doc. # 5). After reviewing the motion, response, court file,
and record, the Court finds as follows:
civil action is originally brought in state court, a
defendant may remove such action when the federal court has
original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal
courts maintain original jurisdiction over civil actions
where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the
parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction. Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v.
Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). Any
doubt as to propriety of removal should be resolved in favor
of remand to state court. Butler v. Polk, 592 F.2d
1293, 1296 (5th Cir. 1979).
motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed
to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
However, in Count II of his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks
“the full amount of the underinsured motorist benefits
under the Policy plus the costs of this action,
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment interest . . .”
(Doc. # 1-1). Additionally, in Count III, Plaintiff alleges
in this bad faith claim that he “is entitled to the
limit of underinsured motorist benefits under the
Plaintiff seeks to recover the fullest extent of coverage,
the Court is able to determine the amount in controversy by
referring to the face of the policy. See, e.g.,
Williams v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., 387 F.Supp.3d 1366,
1369 (M.D. Fla. 2019); Keenan v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.,
No. 6:17-cv-1426-Orl-40GJK, 2017 WL 6312853, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Nov. 17, 2017), report and recommendation adopted,
2017 WL 6312851, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2017); Baltazar
v. Balboa Ins. Co., No. 8:10-cv-2932-T-33MAP, 2011 WL
2020218, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2011). Since the fullest
extent of the uninsured motorist benefits available to
Plaintiff would be $100, 000, it is apparent that the amount
in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
requirement. See Williams, 387 F.Supp.3d at
1370; Keenan, 2017 WL 6312853, at *2; Hudspeth
v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., No.
6:16-cv-1960-Orl-41KRS, 2016 WL 8221940, at *3 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 27, 2016), report and recommendation adopted,
2017 WL 495782, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2017). As such,
Defendant has established that removal is
proper.Consequently, “Plaintiffs Motion to
Remand and for Attorney's Fees and Costs, with
Incorporated Memorandum of Law” is denied.
response in opposition to the motion to remand, Defendant
argues that the motion to remand is frivolous and suggests
that if the Court were to award any attorney's fees or
costs, it should be to Defendant for the time and expense
incurred in preparing its response. After consideration, the
Court declines to award attorney's fees or costs under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3).
it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
(1) “Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and for Attorney's
Fees and Costs, with Incorporated Memorandum of Law”
(Doc. # 4) is hereby DENIED.
 If Defendant was required to issue the
policy with uninsured motorist coverage, the policy limits
would be equal to the limits of Plaintiff's bodily injury
coverage, which is $100, 000. See § 627.727(2),
Fla. Stat. (“The limits of uninsured motorist
coverage shall be not less than the limits of bodily injury
liability insurance purchased by the named insured, or such
lower limit complying with the rating plan of the company as
may be selected by the named insured.”); (Doc. #
 The Court notes that the Civil
Remedies Notice of Insurer Violations (CRN) also indicates
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. (Doc. #
1-1); see Williams, 387 F.Supp.3d at 1371. However,
“such evidence is unnecessary when the requisite amount