UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22341-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

ALAC ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEICO MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

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. [1-1] at 6-

12. The case 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-22341-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22341-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.

“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 $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “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 

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22341-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22341-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

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)).

Defendant asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. [1] ¶ 5. The Court first reviews the allegations in the Complaint 

to determine whether the amount in controversy is satisfied. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims 

for damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s failure to provide coverage pursuant to an 

insurance policy on Plaintiff’s vessel. Significantly, in the first paragraph of the Complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that: “[t]his is an action for damages in excess of $30,000.00 . . . .” ECF No. [1-

1] at 6, ¶ 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 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22341-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22341-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

is satisfied in part because the vessel in question was insured for actual cash value, and at the time 

of the loss, the actual cash value of the vessel was approximately $38,000.00. See ECF No. [1] 

¶ 16. In addition, Defendant submits that Plaintiff will presumably seek to recover attorney’s fees

under Fla. Stat. § 627.428(1), and the Court may include such fees in the amount in controversy. 

See id. ¶¶ 13-14. Defendant notes that Plaintiff has claimed, in a related case, to have suffered 

damages “in the amount of the principal amount outstanding on the Note $41,137.68, plus the 

broker’s fee, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.” Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Defendant further 

avers that Plaintiff’s counsel likely incurred attorney’s fees of at least $37,000.01 in this case and 

related cases, given that Defendant’s counsel has incurred $60,000.00 in this case and related cases.

See id. ¶¶ 26-27. As such, Defendant claims that the Court can conclude that the demand for

reasonable attorney’s fee and the actual cash value of the vessel would easily exceed the amount 

necessary to satisfy the amount in controversy. The Court disagrees.

“The general rule is that attorneys’ fees do not count towards the amount in controversy 

unless they are allowed for by statute or contract.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, 

LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 808 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Graham v. Henegar, 640 F.2d 732, 736 (5th 

Cir. 1981)); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000) (“When a 

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

the amount in controversy.”); see also Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 202 (1933). 

However, “when the amount in controversy substantially depends on a claim for attorney fees, that 

claim should receive heightened scrutiny.” Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1080 n.10 

(11th Cir. 2000).

Here, other than Defendant’s conclusory assertion that reasonable attorney’s fees combined 

with the actual cash value of the vessel would exceed the amount necessary to satisfy the amount 

Case 1:22-cv-22341-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22341-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

in controversy based on Defendant’s counsel’s fees to date in this case and related cases, Defendant 

has provided no evidence of the amount of attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff to date in this case 

or related cases. Further, the Court is unaware of, and Defendant fails to cite, any legal authority 

establishing that attorney’s fees in related cases can be used to satisfy the amount in controversy 

in this case. Defendant seeks to remove this case, not related cases. 

Thus, upon review, the Court finds that Defendant’s Notice is facially deficient in that it 

fails to demonstrate that the $75,000.00 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 July 28, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22341-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 5 of 5