Case Information
*1 Case 8:05-cv-00203-JSM-TBM Document 17 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 103
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
IDENT-A-KID SERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:05-cv-203-T-30TBM GENE MILLER,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. #8), Defendant’s response thereto (Dkt. #9), Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s response (Dkt. #13) and Defendant’s memorandum in response to Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. #16). The dispute among the parties is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum of $75,000 as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1332. Plaintiff contends that the dispute in this case is less than the statutory minimum and, therefore, Defendant improperly removed this case to federal court. This Court disagrees.
This case arises out of an exclusive distributorship agreement (“Agreement”) into which Plaintiff and Defendant entered in 1991. In 2004, Plaintiff notified Defendant that the Agreement was terminated after Defendant refused to sign a new agreement that would convert Defendant from a distributor to a franchisee. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for breach of contract, attorney’s fees pursuant to the Agreement, and for *2 Case 8:05-cv-00203-JSM-TBM Document 17 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 104 declaratory judgment. The parties appear to agree that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim should be valued at $20,000. Additionally, Plaintiff has indicated that it has generated $2500 in attorney’s fees as of the filing of his reply to Defendant’s response. As for Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment, Plaintiff is seeking an order of court declaring that its Agreement with Defendant be terminated. It is undisputed that termination of this agreement would permit Plaintiff to sell six franchises in the territories in which Defendant now operates for $29,500 each.
Because the amount in controversy in a declaratory relief action equals the “monetary value of the object of the litigation from the plaintiff’s perspective,”Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1077 (11th Cir. 2000), and since attorney’s fees are to be considered in this amount where such fees are recoverable by contract, Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, 329 F.3d 805, 808, n.4 (11th Cir. 2003), it is clear that the amount in controversy in this case satisfies the statutory minimum.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt.
#8) is DENIED .
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 23, 2005.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2005\05-cv-203 Motn Remand.wpd
Page 2 of 2