NOTICE AND ORDER

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, Magistrate Judge.

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Rodney McLendon ("Plaintiff"), filed a Petition for Damages (the "Petition") naming as defendants Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Jason Riesenberg, and Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company ("Progressive") for injuries allegedly sustained in a November 30, 2018 motor vehicle accident.1 On November 20, 2019, Progressive removed this action, asserting that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2

With respect to the amount in controversy, Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the motor vehicle accident, he "suffered injuries, damages and losses, including, but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering in connection with injuries to his entire spine, including the back and neck, chest, both hips, and other bodily injuries, as well as past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, lost wages and future loss of wages, and other damages...."3 In addition to relying on this boilerplate listing of Plaintiff's damages to support its position that the amount in controversy is met, Progressive avers that it "specifically requested a damage stipulation that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000. Defendant allowed Plaintiff's counsel until November 7, 2019 to accept the stipulation or the amount in controversy would be confirmed as exceeding the jurisdictional minimum $75,000 for removal to federal court, and no response has been received."4

While Progressive asserts that it provided Plaintiff "the opportunity to stipulate that the amount in controversy is below $75,000" but that Plaintiff has declined to do so,5 Progressive also states that it has received no response to its request for a stipulation. Accordingly, it is not clear whether this is a situation in which Plaintiff has refused to stipulate because Plaintiff believes his damages exceed the jurisdictional threshold or is instead a situation in which Plaintiff does not know the full extent of his damages. In any event, this Court has previously explained that the failure to execute a stipulation is but one factor for the court to consider in its amount in controversy analysis.6 Moreover, there is no information about Plaintiff's incurred medical expenses or the amount of Plaintiff's lost wages. "Federal courts are duty bound to determine their own jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte if necessary."7 The Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter, specifically, whether the amount in controversy is met.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before December 9, 2019 Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company shall file a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before December 19, 2019 Plaintiff shall file either: (1) a Notice stating that Plaintiff does not dispute that Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company has established the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332; or (2) a Motion to Remand.

The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.