Jermaine Cadenhead v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 26-cv-23767-ALTMAN JERMAINE CADENHEAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant. _______________________________________/

ORDER In April 2026, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant in state court, alleging “a negligence claim . . . due to injuries and damages . . . allegedly sustained . . . while at [a] Wal-Mart store.” Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] at 1. On May 28, 2026, the Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. at 3. Although the state-court complaint states that “[t]his is an action for damages that exceed Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars,” Complaint [ECF No. 1-1], the Defendant points out that the “Plaintiff’s Initial Discovery Disclosure state[s] he incurred $169,185.25 in medical expenses,” Removal Status Report [ECF No. 4] at 1. The Defendant therefore concludes that “the amount in controversy [ ] exceed[s] $75,000.00[.]” Id. at 2. “A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “Where a plaintiff fails to specify the total amount of damages demanded, as is the case here, 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.” Ibid. “In some cases, this burden requires the removing defendant to provide additional evidence demonstrating that removal is proper.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010). And “when we evaluate whether the particular factual circumstances of a case give rise to removal jurisdiction, we strictly construe the right to remove and apply a general presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The Defendant hasn’t met its burden here. To be sure, it has adduced evidence that the amount in controversy might exceed the requisite minimum. But “speculation that the amount in controversy

me[e]t[s] the jurisdictional threshold d[oes] not satisfy” the Defendant’s burden. Bradley v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 224 F. App’x 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Thornton by & through Hawthorne v. United Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 2321188, at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 29, 2019) (“[W]here . . . a plaintiff makes unsupported allegations regarding her purported damages during discovery exchanges, those naked assertions are not given great weight in making a damages assessment.”). “Under well-settled pleading principles, the plaintiff is the master of the statement of his claim.” 14A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3702 (4th ed. 2025). So, “if the plaintiff chooses to ask for less than the federal jurisdictional amount in a state court complaint, absent a showing of bad faith only the sum actually demanded is in controversy even though the pleader’s motivation is to defeat removal.” Ibid. (emphasis added). We thus cannot say that the Defendant has established unambiguously that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. And since “all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand,” Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am.

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999), we must send this case back to state court, see Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, 128 F.4th 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2025) (“[T]he statute provides two bases for remand: (1) a lack of subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any time before final judgment or (2) a defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that must be raised within 30 days after filing of the notice of removal.”). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. ‘This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2. All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and all other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 3. ‘The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 11, 2026. “a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record