Payne v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2016
• Docket Number: Case No: 5:15–cv–517–Oc–30PRL
• Parties: Carl Jeffrey Payne, Plaintiff, v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

154 F.Supp.3d 1310

Carl Jeffrey Payne, Plaintiff,

v.J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Defendant.

Case No: 5:15–cv–517–Oc–30PRL

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

Signed January 4, 2016

Daniel E. Smith, Wade B. Coye, Coye Law Firm, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff.

Jill Bechtold, Michael B. Bittner, Marks Gray, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, JR.

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Doc. 6), Defendant's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 8), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike (Doc. 3), and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 11). The Court, having reviewed the motions and responses, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, concludes that both Plaintiff's motion to remand and Defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carl Jeffrey Payne initiated this action on August 11, 2015, in the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, arising from injuries sustained by Plaintiff while he was employed by Defendant. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff originally filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, but Defendant and its insurance carrier denied the claim. (Doc. 2 at 2). Plaintiff elected to dismiss his claim for workers' compensation benefits and instead filed a claim for negligence against Defendant. (Id. ). Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

, asserting that the parties are completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 1). In response, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing that Defendant has not established an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff also contends that even if Defendant could establish an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the case should be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) because Plaintiff's claim arises under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law (“FWCL”), Fla. Stat. §§ 440.01 -.60. (Id. ).

On the other hand, Defendant asserts remand is not necessary because the extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries are sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy and Plaintiff's claim does not arise under the FWCL. (Doc. 8). Defendant, however, seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, arguing that his claim for negligence does not fall within the narrowly prescribed exceptions to the FWCL allowing an employee to pursue a common law action and therefore the workers' compensation scheme is Plaintiff's exclusive remedy. (Doc. 3). Alternatively, Defendant seeks to strike the portions of Plaintiff's complaint asserting that Defendant is not entitled to assert certain affirmative defenses and that Plaintiff's claim is nonremovable under § 1445(c)

. (Id. ).

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff seeks remand of this action to the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, on the basis that (1) Defendant has not established an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, and (2) Plaintiff's claim is nonremovable pursuant to § 1445(c)

.

1. Amount in Controversy

Where the alleged basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity under § 1332

, as it is in this case, the removing defendant has the burden of demonstrating (1) complete diversity of citizenship and (2) an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The parties do not dispute that complete diversity of citizenship exists. Rather, the issue is whether Defendant has established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

When damages are not specified in the state-court complaint, the defendant seeking removal must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds...the jurisdictional requirement.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc. , 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir.2010)

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, a removing defendant is not required “to prove the amount in controversy beyond all doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it.” Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc. , 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir.2010).

In determining the amount in controversy, the court should first look to the complaint. Id.

If the amount is unascertainable from the complaint, the court can look to the notice of removal and other “evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed,” including evidence submitted in response to the motion to remand. Williams v. Best Buy Co. , 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir.2001). In Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that a party seeking to remove a case to federal court within the first thirty days after service is not restricted in the types of evidence it may use to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for removal.¹ 608 F.3d at 770–71. This evidence may include the removing defendant's own affidavit, declaration, or other documentation. Id. at 755. Moreover, district courts are permitted to make “reasonable deductions” and “reasonable inferences,” and need not “suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of the complaint ... establishes the jurisdictional amount.” Id. at 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Instead, courts may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements.” Roe , 613 F.3d at 1062.

Plaintiff made an unspecified demand for damages; the complaint simply states that Plaintiff's damages exceed $15,000. (Doc. 2). But Defendant contends that it is apparent from the number and type of damages sought by Plaintiff that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. (Doc. 8). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he “suffered severe injuries and other damages as a result of [Defendant's] negligence ..., including a left hallux amputation

, and was further injured in about his body and extremities, suffered pain therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the treatment of the injuries and suffered physical handicap and his working ability [was] significantly impaired. [He also] ... suffered mental anguish, and the loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. The injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and ... Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future.” (Doc. 2 at 4). Such allegations, standing alone, would be insufficient to meet Defendant's burden. See Williams , 269 F.3d at 1319–21

(concluding that allegations that the plaintiff tripped on a curb and sustained permanent physical and mental injuries, incurred substantial medical expenses, suffered lost wages, and experienced a diminished earnings capacity were insufficient, standing alone, to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence).

However, in addition to Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant has also provided trial verdicts and settlements from cases alleging similar injuries to those sustained by Plaintiff where the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold. Defendant has provided three examples of jury verdicts or settlements involving claims of negligence involving amputation or severe injury to the hallux or big toe and resulting damage awards greater than $75,000. (Doc. 8, Ex. 1) (listing Florida cases resulting in settlements or jury verdicts in the amounts of $180,000, $150,000, and $195,286). These settlements and jury verdicts along with the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Mullaney v. Endogastric Solutions, Inc. , No. 11-62056-CIV, 2011 WL 4975904, at *2 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 19, 2011)

(relying on jury verdicts and settlements in conjunction with the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint in determining that the defendant established the amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence). Diversity jurisdiction therefore exists and Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on this ground.

2. Workers' Compensation

Plaintiff contends that even if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim, the case should be remanded in accordance with § 1445(c)

because Plaintiff's claim arises under the FWCL. (Doc. 6 at 4-7). Section 1445(c) provides that a civil action filed in state court arising under that state's workmen's compensation laws is nonremovable.

Although the Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed the meaning of “arising under” pursuant to § 1445(c)

, most courts to have addressed this question have held that “arising under” in the context of § 1445(c) shares the same definition as “arising under” in the context of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc. , 931 F.2d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir.1991) ; Lomeli v. HD Supply, Inc. , No. 15-07759 SJO (SHx), 2015 WL 6775919, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (“Although Congress did not define what ‘arising under’ means in the Section 1445(c) context, all courts to have addressed the issue agree that ‘arising under’ in [Section] 1445(c) means the same thing as it does in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, “arising under” means the law either creates the cause of action or is a necessary element of the claim. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg. , 545 U.S. 308, 312, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005) ; Jones , 931 F.2d at 1092 ; Lomeli , 2015 WL 6775919, at *4.

By his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he sustained injuries as a result of Defendant's negligence. (Doc. 2 at 1-2). Plaintiff contends that his claim “arises under” Florida Statutes § 440.06

and § 440.11(1). Florida Statute § 440.06 provides:

Every employer who fails to secure the payment of compensation ... by failing to meet the requirements of s. 440.38 may not, in any suit brought against him or her by an employee subject to this chapter to recover damages for injury or death, defend such a suit on the

...