Shapiro v. NuVasive, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 October 2019 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-23163-Civ-Scola |
Parties | Karen Shapiro, Plaintiff, v. NuVasive, Inc., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Karen Shapiro's motion for remand. (ECF No. 8.) Upon review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies the motion (ECF No. 8).
(Id. at ¶¶ 23, 27, 31.) Shapiro alleges that these losses are "either permanent or continuing in nature" so she "will suffer these losses in the future." (Id.) Shapiro states that her suit is for "damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15, 000.00) Dollars, exclusive of cost, interest, and attorney's fees." (Id. at ¶ 1.)
NuVasive first attempted to remove this case in September 2018. See Shapiro v. NuVasive, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-23602-RNS (S.D. Fla. 2018). The Court granted Shapiro's motion to remand, however, because NuVasive, at that time, had failed to carry its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of showing that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional amount. See Shapiro v. NuVasive, Inc., 18-23602-CIV, 2019 WL 275689, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2019).
Since then, however, Shapiro, through counsel, has stated that the "actual amount of billed [medical] damages are about $80,000." (Def.'s Not. of Removal, Exhibit A, Hr'g Tr. 6:4-11, ECF No. 1-2, 7.) NuVasive timely filed its notice of removal within 30 days after its receipt of this information and asserts the parties are diverse and the amount-in-controversy has been met. (Def.'s Not. at 3-8.)
Shapiro, in her motion, on the other hand, argues she has "stipulated and affirmatively conceded that she does not seek and will not seek to recover in excess of $75,000.00 in damages" and therefore this case should be remanded. (Pl.'s Mot. at 5.) NuVasive has filed opposition (ECF No. 11) to Shapiro's motion, to which Shapiro has replied (ECF No. 14).
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. In evaluating Shapiro's motion for remand, the Court is bound to construe the removal statute strictly, so "all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999).
When a complaint does not include a specific claim for damages, Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2005). "A conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden." Id. at 1319-20. Instead, "a defendant seeking removal based on diversity jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement." Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). To meet this burden, NuVasive need only show that it is "more likely than not" that the amount in controversy requirements have been met. Lee-Bolton v. Koppers Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (N.D. Fla. 2011). In evaluating whether thedefendant has met this burden, the Court may consider information relating to the amount in controversy in the record of the state-court proceeding or in response to discovery. See Lambertson v. Go Fit, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (Moore, J.) ().
Shapiro's unspecified demand for damages, in her complaint, requires NuVasive to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional amount." Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Shapiro does not deny that she revealed her "medical bills total approximately $80,000." (Pl.'s Mot. 7.) Instead, she argues record evidence and "papers" to the contrary outweigh this unchallenged evidence. (Id. at 7-8.) In support, Shapiro points to (1) her responses to NuVasive's requests for admission; (2) her proposals for settlement; and (3) her complaint. The Court is not persuaded.
Shapiro directs the Court's attention to her responses to NuVasive's requests for admissions "wherein Plaintiff clearly stipulated and affirmatively conceded that she does not seek and will not seek to recover in excess of $75,000.00 in damages." (Pl.'s Mot. at 5.) According to Shapiro, these "affirmative responses and concessions" are "dispositive as to the amount in controversy at the time of removal." (Id. at 6.) In support of her position, she points to the reasoning set forth in Hernandez v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., 6:09-CV-1118-LSC, 2009 WL 10703680, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2009). Her reliance on this case, however, is misplaced. While indeed the plaintiff in that case had made similar admissions, those admissions were not the basis for the court's decision to remand. Instead, the court remanded because the defendant there had not come forward with any evidence, other than those admissions, to support removal. Here, in contrast, the Defendant does not even rely on Shapiro's admissions to support removal and instead comes to this Court armed with $80,000 in medical ...
To continue reading
Request your trial