Scenic Jacksonville, Inc. v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
3:11-cv-00055
M.D. Fla.Jun 23, 2011Background
- This is a diversity-jurisdiction case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
- Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. removed a state-court action brought by Scenic Jacksonville, Inc. to federal court.
- Scenic Jacksonville claimed attorneys’ fees could exceed $150,000 at the time of removal, seeking remand if jurisdiction was not shown.
- Settlement history: Clear Channel and Scenic Jacksonville settled in 1995 with Scenic releasing claims for over $250,000 in fees in exchange for $45,000 and other billboard obligations.
- As of removal, Scenic Jacksonville submitted a letter stating more than 400 hours by counsel at $390/hour and ~50 hours by a paralegal at $150/hour, totaling $163,500.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the fee claim establish the amount in controversy? | Scenic (plaintiff) argues fees are recoverable under contract/statute and total exceeds $75,000. | Clear Channel argues the fees are speculative or not properly proven to exceed $75,000. | Yes; fees evidenced by counsel's hours and rates exceed $75,000. |
| Can post-removal evidence be considered to determine removal jurisdiction? | Scenic contends evidence post-dates removal may be reviewed to assess jurisdiction. | Clear Channel concedes but argues evidence should relate to time of removal. | Post-removal evidence may be reviewed if relevant to the time of removal. |
| Do contract or statute-based attorneys’ fees count toward the amount in controversy? | Scenic asserts fees are recoverable under Jacksonville Charter and settlement agreements. | Fees only count if permitted by statute or contract and proven. | Attorneys’ fees awarded under contract/statute count toward the amount in controversy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional review for removal when amount not pled)
- Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001) (preponderance standard; uncertainties resolved in plaintiffs' favor for remand)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (uncertainties resolved in favor of remand when jurisdiction is disputed)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (allowing post-removal evidence to assess removal jurisdiction; broad evidentiary scope)
- Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional facts must be judged at time of removal)
- Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000) (heightened scrutiny when fee claims drive amount in controversy)
- Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, L.L.C., 329 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2003) (attorneys’ fees count toward amount in controversy when authorized by contract)