Goldsmith v. The Travelers Indem. Co. of Am.

• Decision Date: 13 January 2022
• Docket Number: 8:21-cv-2659-CEH-AAS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
• Parties: SANDRA GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.

SANDRA GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 8:21-cv-2659-CEH-AAS

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

January 13, 2022

ORDER

Cliarlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Juchre

This cause is before the Court on the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 14) and Defendant's Response to Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 16). On December 22, 2021, the Court directed Defendant, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers” or “Defendant”), to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant's citizenship and the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction had not been sufficiently established. Doc. 14 at 1. Travelers responds that, regarding its citizenship, it separately filed an affidavit demonstrating it is a Connecticut corporation, and therefore diverse from Plaintiff. Doc. 16 ¶¶ 5, 6. Regarding the amount in controversy, Travelers responds that Plaintiff failed to oppose the removal and that discovery requests it propounded on January 4, 2022 may reveal that the amount in controversy has been met. Travelers requests the Court wait until after the discovery responses are received to allow it to file an amended response. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Travelers has failed to

1

establish that the parties are diverse. Moreover, Travelers has failed to establish that the amount in controversy has been met to invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will remand this action to the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County.

I. BACKGROUND

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff, Sandra Goldsmith (“Goldsmith” or “Plaintiff”), was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 2, 2020, in Polk County when the vehicle in which she was riding collided with a vehicle negligently driven by an uninsured/underinsured motorist. Doc. 1-1 at 5. As a result, Goldsmith sustained “serious injuries.” Id. On June 28, 2021, Goldsmith sued her insurance carrier, Travelers, in state court, for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under the policy of insurance Goldsmith had with Travelers at the time of the accident. Id. at 6. Goldsmith's Complaint does not include a specific demand for damages, but she alleges her damages exceed $30, 000. Id. at 4, 6.

On November 10, 2021, Travelers removed the action to this Court predicating the Court's jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75, 000. Doc. 1. The Notice of Removal cited to Plaintiff's allegations in her complaint regarding her physical and mental pain and suffering, injuries to her body and aggravation of pre-existing condition, past and future medical expenses, and loss of earnings to support its position that the amount in controversy has been met. Id. ¶ 9. These are the types of damages requested in nearly every personal injury complaint filed in state court in Florida, regardless of the extent of the injuries. Such conclusory

2

allegations reveal nothing regarding whether the damages exceed $75, 000. Because the amount in controversy was not apparent from the Notice of Removal and attachments, the Court issued an order to show cause to Travelers (Doc. 14), to which Travelers has now responded (Doc. 16).

Also pending is an unopposed motion to consolidate this action with an action pending before another judge in the Middle District which appears to arise out of the same motor vehicle accident. Doc. 15. Because the other action was removed first and bears the lower case number, Defendant seeks to consolidate the instant action with Case No. 8:21-cv-2656, Daniel Goldsmith v. Travelers, pursuant to M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.07.^[1]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts must sua sponte inquire into subject matter jurisdiction whenever such jurisdiction may be lacking. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004); accord Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.”). “The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim involves the court's competency to consider a given type of case, and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties.” Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1000 (11th Cir. 1982). The bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are confined, as federal courts are “empowered to hear only those cases

3

within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution or otherwise authorized by Congress.” Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending, provided the district court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001)); see Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 411-412 (“The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.”). Congress granted district courts original subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions sitting in diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the lawsuit is...