UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

ILEANA ECHEVARRIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TACO BELL OF AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Ileana Echevarria’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 

to Remand, ECF No. [4] (“Motion”). Defendant Taco Bell of America, LLC (“Defendant”) filed 

its Response in Opposition, ECF No. [6] (“Response”), to which Plaintiff did not file a Reply. The 

Court has considered the Motion, the Response, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is 

otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, see ECF No. [1-2] (“Complaint”), and thereafter filed her second 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. [1-2] at 29-37 (“Amended Complaint”). The Plaintiff seeks 

damages for injuries resulting from food purchased at the Defendant’s store placed in a 

contaminated polystyrene container. She seeks damages for Breach of Implied Warranty of 

Merchantability and Fitness (Count I); Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

(“FDUTPA”) (Count II); Unjust Enrichment (Count III); and Negligence (Count IV). Plaintiff 

further alleged in the Amended Complaint that the damages in this action were in excess of 

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

2

$30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Id. at 29. In addition to the allegations 

of past and future economic and non-economic damages, including ongoing or permanent pain 

and suffering, the Amended Complaint asserted a count pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), and sought to recover attorneys’ fees. Id. at 33-34, 36. 

On July 8, 2020, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff’s settlement demand of over $500,000.00 indicated that the 

amount in controversy requirement was satisfied in this case. ECF No. [1] (“Notice”). While the

parties are citizens of different states, Plaintiff seeks to remand the case to state court because the 

amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. ECF No. [4]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) vests a district court with subject matter jurisdiction when the 

parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id. A party may remove the 

action from state court to federal court if the action is within the federal court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Coffey v. 

Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Where, as here, the plaintiff 

has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction requirement.” Pretka v. 

Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Further, in determining whether a subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court must focus on the 

amount in controversy at the time of removal, not at any later point. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 751 

(citations omitted); E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

“To determine whether this standard is met, a court first examines whether ‘it is facially apparent 

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

3

from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.’”

Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy 

Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)), abrogated on other grounds by Dudley v. Eli 

Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014). “If the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent 

from the complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and may require evidence 

relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed.” Id. (quoting Williams, 

269 F.3d at 1319).

“[A] removing defendant is not required to prove the amount in controversy beyond all 

doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (citations omitted). “Where, 

as in this case, the complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages, ‘the district court is not 

bound by the plaintiff’s representations regarding its claim,’ and may review the record for 

evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” DO Rests., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 984 

F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 

(11th Cir. 2010)). Moreover, “defendants may submit a wide range of evidence in order to satisfy 

the jurisdictional requirements of removal,” including “affidavits, declarations, or other 

documentation.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 755. The Court may also use its judicial experience and make 

reasonable inferences and deductions to determine the amount in controversy. See Roe, 613 F.3d 

at 1061-62; Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754 (discussing the difference between reasonable deductions and 

inferences with “conjecture, speculation, or star gazing”); E.S.Y., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1360.

III. DISCUSSION

In the Motion, Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded because Defendant has 

failed to meet the amount in controversy requirement, based on the updated post-removal 

settlement demand of $74,000.00, which Plaintiff appends to her Motion. ECF No. [4] at 12; ECF 

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

4

No. [4-2]. In its Response, Defendant contends that the Court should consider Plaintiff’s initial, 

pre-removal settlement demand, instead of the inherently self-serving post-removal demand. ECF 

No. [6] at 6-8. Nevertheless, Defendant notes that the post-removal settlement demand, coupled 

with Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees accrued through the time of removal, meet the 

$75,000.00 amount-in-controversy requirement. Id. at 8-13. Upon review of the arguments and the 

record in this case, the Court concludes that the amount in controversy is satisfied. 

As noted above, when examining the amount in controversy requirement under diversity 

jurisdiction, the Court considers the amount at issue at the time of removal. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 

751; Miedema, 450 F.3d at 1330; E.S.Y., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1360. The Court may consider a 

wide variety of evidence regarding the amount in controversy, such as “affidavits, declarations, or 

other documentation,” in addition to making reasonable inferences and applying its own judicial 

experience. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 755; see also Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061-62. Moreover, “[w]hen a 

statute authorizes the recovery of attorney’s fees, a reasonable amount of those fees is included in 

the amount in controversy.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000); 

see also Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 202 (1933); DO Rests., Inc., 984 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1345. “The evidence provided must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the attorney’s fees are not speculative, however the evidence does not need ‘to establish the amount 

in controversy beyond all doubt or banish all uncertainty about it.’” DO Rests., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 

2d at 1345 (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 755).

The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, regardless of which amount is 

considered for the amount-in-controversy determination. In particular, even considering Plaintiff’s 

updated, post-removal settlement demand of $74,000.00, the Court concludes that the amount in 

controversy is satisfied. 

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

5

The post-removal settlement demand that Plaintiff appends to her Motion, dated July 10, 

2020, states:

Given the facts of Ms. Echevarria’s case, the injuries, prognosis, medical expenses, 

out-of-pocket expenses, and pain and suffering, and in an effort to extend a good 

faith offer of settlement to quickly resolve the matter without the need for further 

litigation, we hereby request a tender in the amount of $74,000.00. This tender is 

substantiated by the medical records and evaluations attached hereto. This tender is 

inclusive of the entirety of Ms. Echevarria’s past and future physical and emotional 

damages, as well as her pain and suffering.

ECF No. [4-2] at 3. Excluded from this demand, however, is any request for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ 

fees accrued through the date of removal, despite her statutory entitlement to these attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to FDUTPA, upon prevailing in this action. See Fla. Stat. § 501.2105(1).1

The Court can reasonably infer that Plaintiff accrued over $1,000.00 in attorneys’ fees at 

the time of removal, given the work that was done in the state court action. See Roe, 613 F.3d at 

1061-62 (“Eleventh Circuit precedent permits district courts to make ‘reasonable deductions, 

reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations’ from the pleadings to determine whether 

it is facially apparent that a case is removable.” (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754)). Specifically, 

as Defendant correctly notes, Plaintiff’s counsel performed the following tasks in the underlying 

state court case prior to removal: (1) “drafted, filed, and served three Complaints;” (2) “presumably 

researched Plaintiff’s potential causes of action (four Counts) before filing this action—in addition 

to researching the alleged benzene-related chemicals and packaging at issue here (including the 

scientific and governmental materials that Plaintiff cites in her Complaints);” (3) “met with their 

client before instituting this action;” (4) “reviewed her medical records and bills;” (5) corresponded 

with, and had phone calls with, defense counsel;” and (6) “reviewed [Defendant’s] pending motion 

to dismiss, filed on June 11, 2020, which Plaintiff mentions in her [Motion].” ECF No. [6] at 11-

1 Notably, Plaintiff failed to file any reply to contest Defendant’s arguments regarding the addition of 

attorneys’ fees to the $74,000.00 supplemental settlement demand.

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 20-cv-22810-BLOOM/Louis

6

12. It is more than reasonable to infer that the total fees generated for the tasks listed above total 

more than $1,000.00. See Soares v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-22421, 2019 WL 3773649, at 

*3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2019). Thus, even when examining Plaintiff’s updated $74,000.00 

settlement demand for the amount in controversy, the Court concludes that this amount exceeds 

the $75,000.00 requirement to establish diversity jurisdiction. As such, Defendant has established 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

minimum of $75,000.00. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [4], 

is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 2, 2020.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22810-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 6 of 6