Schimmenti v. Arden Courts of Tampa FL, LLC, 8:13-cv-02862

Plaintiff Rhonda Schimmenti filed an employment-law action in Florida state court seeking compensatory (back and front pay, emotional distress), punitive damages, and attorney’s fees; complaint did not quantify damages beyond alleging they exceed $15,000.
Defendant Arden Courts of Tampa removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting (without evidentiary support) that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff moved to remand, conceding diversity but arguing the defendant failed to prove the jurisdictional amount.
Defendant offered no affidavits, payroll data, or other documentary evidence showing Plaintiff’s damages; instead relied on assumptions and Plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate to a cap.
The Court applied Eleventh Circuit standards for proving amount in controversy when damages are unspecified and found the defendant did not meet its preponderance burden.
The Court granted remand to the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, and closed the federal case; the Order noted defendant may later remove upon obtaining appropriate “other paper” evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant proved by a preponderance that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction	Schimmenti: defendant failed to present evidence showing damages exceed jurisdictional threshold	Arden Courts: plaintiff’s unspecified damages and refusal to stipulate indicate damages exceed $75,000; court should infer amount in controversy	Court: defendant failed to meet burden; remand required
Whether plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate satisfies defendant’s burden	Refusal alone is insufficient to prove amount in controversy	Refusal suggests plaintiff seeks > $75,000	Court: refusal to stipulate is not enough absent evidentiary support
Whether the court can rely on reasonable inferences/common sense to determine amount	Plaintiff: common sense cannot substitute for evidence when defendant offers none	Defendant: court may use judicial experience and common sense to infer damages	Court: may use common sense, but here facts and complaint do not support finding > $75,000
Whether defendant may obtain discovery and later remove based on new evidence	Plaintiff: not addressed but remand is appropriate now	Defendant: could pursue discovery and remove upon receiving an “other paper” showing amount	Court: remand; defendant free to seek discovery and potentially remove later under § 1446(b)(3) if deadlines satisfied

Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir.) (defendant removing a case must prove by a preponderance that amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds jurisdictional requirement)
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.) (removing defendant may rely on a variety of evidence within first 30 days; courts may draw reasonable inferences and use common sense)
Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate to damages is insufficient alone to satisfy defendant’s burden to show federal jurisdiction)