Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

STRATMANN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6:15-cv-1036-Orl-31KRS. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150729b71 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Remand (Doc. 16) filed by the Plaintiff, Scott Stratmann. In his Complaint (Doc. 2), Stratmann contends he suffered damages in excess of $15,000 as a result of an automobile accident caused by Defendant Sofiane Abadlia, an uninsured motorist. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") removed the case from state court on June 24, 2015. (Doc. 1). In
More

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Remand (Doc. 16) filed by the Plaintiff, Scott Stratmann. In his Complaint (Doc. 2), Stratmann contends he suffered damages in excess of $15,000 as a result of an automobile accident caused by Defendant Sofiane Abadlia, an uninsured motorist. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") removed the case from state court on June 24, 2015. (Doc. 1).

In its notice of removal (Doc. 1), State Farm contends that removal was proper because this Court possessed original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish that the $75,000 amount in controversy was satisfied in this case, State Farm relied on a $900,000 demand letter sent before suit was filed. (Doc. 1 at 2). Stratmann does not dispute having sent that demand letter or offer any evidence that his claim was spectacularly overvalued in it. His only argument is that the demand letter was "in the nature of a settlement offer pursuant to Florida Statute 90.408 and should not be relied upon by Defendant for purpose of removal of this civil action to federal court." (Doc. 16 at 3). Stratmann offers no citation to any case law for this point, and the cases uncovered by the Court reach the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., 2009 WL 1532129 (S.D.Fla. June 1, 2009) (permitting consideration of pre-suit demand letter in determining amount in controversy over Section 90.408 objection, and citing cases reaching similar result). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer