Kelly Paramore v. Interstate Management Company, LLC, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 26-cv-23489-ALTMAN KELLY PARAMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER In February 2026, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant 340 Biscayne Owner LLC (“340 Biscayne”) in state court. See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] at 1. In April 2026, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (the “AC”) [ECF No. 1-5], adding new Defendants. See Notice of Removal at 2–3. On May 18, 2026, the Defendants removed the case to federal court, invoking subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although the AC states that “[t]his is an action for damages that exceed Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars,” AC at 1, the Defendants point out that the Plaintiff’s Initial Discovery Disclosures “allege that as of April 17, 2026, her past medical bills total $129,374.43, and that her special damages total $3,750,000.00, which include pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life,” Removal Status Report [ECF No. 7] at 2; see also Exhibit Initial Discovery Disclosures [ECF No. 1-7]. The Defendants therefore conclude that “the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00[.]” Removal Status Report at 2–3. “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 Defendants have failed to meet their burden here. To be sure, they’ve 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 Defendants’ burden. Bradley v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 224 F. App’x 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Marshall v. Ga. CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., 580 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2022) (noting that “essentially emotional” injuries prove “inherently hard to quantify”); 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 Defendants have 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 Welson 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 May 28, 2026.

ROYK.ALTMAN ——— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record