Shuflita et al v. Target Corporation, No. 0:2008cv61614 - Document 2 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Remanding Case to State Court. All pending motions are denied as moot. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 10/10/08. (ir)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-61614-CIV-MARRA ORIT SHUFLITA and BENNY SHUFLITA, her husband, Plaintiffs, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. _____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Defendant Target Corporation s Notice of Removal (DE 1), filed October 8, 2008. The Court has carefully reviewed the court record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Defendant removes this case, claiming this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000.00. (Notice of Removal ¶ ¶ 5-6.) Defendant states that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 because Defendant has served a request for admission on the Plaintiff[s] asking them to admit that the value of the case is less than $75.000.00. Defendant believes that the Plaintiff[s] will take the position that the case exceeds $75.000.00. (Notice of Removal ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs state court complaint alleges damages in excess of $15,000. (State Court Compl. ¶ 1, attached to Notice of Removal.) It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Russell Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir.2001). Removal jurisdiction is construed narrowly with all doubts resolved in favor of remand. See Pacheco de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir.1998). The removing party has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal. Diaz v. Shepard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996). Federal courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction and the decision to address that issue sua sponte applies equally in removal cases Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d Cir. 1995). In diversity cases with an unspecified damages claim, the removing defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional minimum. Tapscott v. MS. Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on other grounds, Office Depot v. Cohen, 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). The Court finds that Defendant has not met its evidentiary burden regarding the amount in controversy requirement. Defendant s belief that Plaintiffs will admit in their response to Defendant s request for admission that the case exceeds $75,000.00 is entirely speculative. In other words, the Court cannot satisfy itself that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. Hence, the case must be remanded back to state court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. All pending motions are denied as moot and the clerk shall close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 10th day of October, 2008. ______________________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
