UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22779-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

DAVID CASTRO, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

______________________________/ 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Defendant’s Notice of 

Removal, ECF No. [1] (“Notice”), and Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint”), ECF No. [1] at 5-11, 

which was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to 

this Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish 

the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed 

that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests 

upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 

(1799) and McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936)). A “district 

court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Herskowitz 

v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006). This is because federal courts are “‘empowered 

to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of 

Case 1:22-cv-22779-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22779-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by 

Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor 

v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, “once a federal court determines 

that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. at 410.

In the Notice, Defendant asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. [1]. “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). District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are 

completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “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) (citing 

Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a).

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

apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

requirement.” Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted), 

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. (citation omitted). Even so, “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 

Case 1:22-cv-22779-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22779-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

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. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “However, courts 

must be mindful that removal statutes are construed narrowly and that uncertainties are resolved 

in favor of remand.” Chiu v. Terminix Co. Int’l, L.P., No. 8:16-cv-306-T-24 JSS, 2016 WL 

1445089, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2016) (citing Burns v. Windsor, 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 

1994)).

In this case, the Court first reviews the allegations in the Complaint—the operative 

pleading—to determine whether the amount in controversy is satisfied. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

asserts claims related to injuries Plaintiff sustained when the elevator he was riding in suddenly 

stopped as it was descending. Significantly, in the first paragraph of the Complaint, Plaintiff 

alleges only that: “[t]his is an action for damages that exceeds the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND

DOLLARS, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.” ECF No. [1] at 5, ¶ 1. As such, it is 

not facially apparent from the Complaint that the amount in controversy is satisfied.

Because Plaintiff does not plead a specific amount of damages, the Court next looks at the 

Notice to determine whether the amount in controversy is satisfied, mindful that it is Defendant’s 

Case 1:22-cv-22779-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22779-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant contends that the amount in controversy 

is satisfied because Plaintiff’s injuries are alleged to be “serious and permanent.” ECF No. [1] at 

2 (citing Complaint ¶¶ 5, 6, 9-11, 15-17). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff 

sustained “significant personal injuries.” ECF No. [1] at 8, ¶ 10; 11, ¶ 16. The Complaint further 

alleges that

Plaintiff suffered bodily injury resulting in pain and suffering, disability, 

disfigurement, permanent and significant scarring, mental anguish, loss of the 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing

care and treatment, loss of earning, loss of the ability to earn money, and 

aggravation of previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or 

continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future.

ECF No. [1] at 8, ¶ 11; 11, ¶ 17. However, Defendant provides no underlying supporting facts or 

other information from which the Court can conclude that Defendant has met its burden of proving 

the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.

The Court notes that while Plaintiff’s injuries and the resulting damages he recovers may 

very well exceed the amount in controversy, they may very well not. “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.” Williams, 269

F.3d at 1319-1320; see also Burns, 31 F.3d at 1097 (finding defendant failed to satisfy burden of 

proof regarding amount in controversy where defendant offered only conclusory allegations); 

Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252, 254-55 (5th Cir. 1961)1 (stating that 

removing defendant must make “an affirmative showing . . . of all the requisite factors of diversity 

jurisdiction” and that “the amount in controversy being open was ground for remand.”).

1 The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down 

prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th 

Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Case 1:22-cv-22779-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22779-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5 

As such, the Court finds that Defendant’s Notice is facially deficient in that it fails to 

demonstrate that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied. The Court, 

therefore, concludes that diversity jurisdiction is lacking, rendering it without subject matter 

jurisdiction to preside over Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED to the 

Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Clerk 

of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 1, 2022. 

_________________________________ 

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record 

Case 1:22-cv-22779-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 5