UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KIMBERLY M ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

DYLAN J HATCHER, and

VOLT POWER LLC,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Pending is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 6, which Defendants 

oppose. Having fully considered the matter, the Court finds that the motion is due 

to be denied.

Background

Plaintiff Kimberly M. Roberts filed this case in the Circuit Court of the First 

Judicial Circuit in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida, on March 9, 2020, alleging

she was injured by the negligence of Defendant Dylan J. Hatcher, while he was 

driving a transport truck as an employee of Volt Power LLC. Specifically, Roberts 

alleged that Hatcher failed to properly secure cargo on the transport truck, and that 

on August 29, 2018, the cargo fell off the truck and into Roberts’s lane of travel, 
Page 2 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

where she could not avoid a collision. Roberts alleged that she suffered severe and 

permanent damages in excess of $30,000. 

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 13, 2021, on the basis of

diversity jurisdiction. Defendants state that the case was not removable until

December 14, 2020, when Roberts produced a supplemental discovery response to 

a request for admissions, in which she expressly admitted that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and conversely expressly denied that the controversy 

involves less than $75,000.

1

 Defendants removed the case within 30 days of

receiving the admissions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (removal is timely within 30 

days of the receipt of an “other paper” from which it was first ascertained that the 

case was removeable).

Roberts filed a timely motion to remand within 30 days after removal, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(a), arguing that Defendants’ amount-in-controversy allegation is 

conclusory and insufficient.

2 Defendants responded with pre-suit papers that they 

1 These supplemental responses were provided after an order compelling more complete 

responses. 

2 Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of diversity of citizenship. The Court notes, 

however, that Defendant Volt’s assertion of its own citizenship in the negative (i.e., that it is not a 

citizen of Florida) is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Therefore, Defendants will be required 

to supplement the Notice of Removal with a statement of the citizenship of each member of the 

LLC. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th 

Cir. 2004) (“To sufficiently allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a 

party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.”); see also D.B. 
Page 3 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

received from Roberts demonstrating that the jurisdictional prerequisite is met. In 

particular, Defendants attached bills from various medical providers, including 

NeuroMicroSpine, PLLC, West Florida Radiology Associates, Santa Rosa Medical 

Center, and others totaling approximately $82,0000 and a cost analysis from the 

Phoenix Rehabilitation Corporation, which estimates future medical expenses 

ranging from between $565,810 and $618,306. See ECF No. 6-1. 

Discussion

A defendant may remove a civil case filed in state court if the federal court 

has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The defendant must file a notice of 

removal within 30 days after receipt by the defendant of “an initial pleading setting 

forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based” or within 

30 days after the defendant’s receipt of a pleading or “other paper from which it may 

be first ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removeable.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), (3). The notice of removal must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for removal,” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. 

Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 83 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)), which, for cases 

Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring 

plaintiff LLC to identify its members, their respective citizenship, and to trace the citizenship of 

any member that is an unincorporated association).
Page 4 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

brought under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, includes a good faith and “plausible 

allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,”

Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 917, 925 (11th Cir. 2019). When a plaintiff 

contests the amount in controversy allegation, “both sides submit proof and the court 

decides by a preponderance of the evidence whether the amount-in-controversy 

requirement has been satisfied.” Dart, 574 U.S. at 88. “[T]he removing party 

shoulders the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Bowling v. 

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, As Tr. for C-Bass Mortg. Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, 

Series 2007-SP2, 963 F.3d 1030, 1034 (11th Cir. 2020). To decide whether this 

burden is met, courts “may rely on evidence put forward by the removing defendant, 

as well as reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from that evidence.” 

Anderson, 943 F.3d at 925.

Roberts argues that her supplemental response to the request for admissions, 

standing alone, does not provide a sufficient facially plausible factual basis to 

support the amount in controversy allegation. Roberts relies on unpublished 

decisions finding that an admission by itself is conclusory and insufficient to 

establish the jurisdictional amount. See Pennington v. Covidien LP, No. 8:18-CV2114-T-33SPF, 2018 WL 4501739, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2018) (finding 

insufficient a bare certification by the plaintiff that the amount in controversy was 
Page 5 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

met and noting a glaring absence of medical bills or other evidence); Eckert v. Sears, 

Roebuck & Co., No. 8:13-CV-2599-T-23, 2013 WL 5673511, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 

17, 2013) (finding a conclusory admission insufficient to establish the amount in 

controversy without an underlying factual basis). Defendants argue that those cases 

are inapposite because here, contrary to the facts in Pennington and Eckert, there is

evidence to substantiate the amount in controversy. The Court agrees with 

Defendants. 

As Defendants acknowledge, pre-suit documents are insufficient standing 

alone to constitute “other paper” that serves to start the 30-day removal clock, see 

generally Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1992) (to 

constitute “other paper” for purposes of removal, it must be received by the 

defendant after the initial pleading), but a defendant may use information obtained 

pre-suit to support removal. See Jade E. Towers Devs. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 

936 F. Supp. 890, 892 (N.D. Fla. 1996). Also, where the requisite amount in 

controversy is not facially apparent from the pleading, courts “may consider facts 

alleged in the notice of removal, judicial admissions made by the plaintiffs, nonsworn letters submitted to the court, or other summary judgment type evidence that 

may reveal that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.” Pretka v. Kolter 

City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting 16 James Wm. 
Page 6 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 107.14[2][g], at 107–86.4 to 107–86.5 (3d 

ed. 2010)). 

Here, the Complaint by itself was not sufficient to establish the amount in 

controversy. It did, however, include plausible allegations that Roberts “sustained 

serious injury” as a result of colliding with an object that fell off of a transport truck 

and into her lane of traffic while she was operating a motor vehicle. Roberts alleged 

that she suffered impairment, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, and 

diminished earning capacity, in addition to incurring medical expenses for injuries 

she asserts are permanent. The Notice of Removal was filed based on Roberts’s later 

produced judicial admission that the amount in controversy in fact exceeds $75,000. 

Even considering this admission as conclusory in nature, the Defendants also 

produced pre-suit papers received from Roberts, including medical bills and 

estimated future medical costs, which are more than sufficient to substantiate the 

amount in controversy. This type of substantiating evidence was absent in

Pennington and Eckert. The Court finds that the Defendants have carried their 

burden to establish that the amount in controversy is satisfied. 

Accordingly:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 5, is DENIED. 
Page 7 of 7

CASE NO. 3:21cv82-MCR-EMT

2. The Defendants are required to file a supplement to the Notice of 

Removal within fourteen (14) days identifying the citizenship of each member of the 

LLC.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of May 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE