govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-23767-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JERMAINE CADENHEAD, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, 
 
Defendant. 
_______________________________________/ 
 
 
 
ORDER 
In April 2026, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant in state court , alleging “a negligence 
claim . . . due to injuries and damages . . . allegedly sustained . . . while at [a] Wal-Mart store.” Notice 
of Removal [ECF No. 1] at 1. On May 2 8, 2026, the Defendant removed the case to federal court , 
invoking subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. at 3. Although the state-court 
complaint states that “[t]his is an action for damages that exceed Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars ,” 
Complaint [ECF No. 1-1], the Defendant points out that the “Plaintiff’s Initial Discovery Disclosure 
state[s] he incurred $169,185.25 in medical expenses,” Removal Status Report [ECF No. 4] at 1. The 
Defendant therefore concludes that “the amount in controversy [ ] exceed[s] $75,000.00[.]” Id. at 2. 
“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction. ” Leonard v. 
Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “Where a plaintiff fails to specify the total amount 
of damages demanded, as is the case here, a defendant seeking removal based on diversity jurisdiction 
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 
jurisdictional requirement. ” Ibid. “In some cases, this burden requires the removing defendant to 
provide additional evidence demonstrating that r emoval is proper.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 
F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010). And “when we evaluate whether the particular factual circumstances 
Case 1:26-cv-23767-RKA Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2026 Page 1 of 3
2 
 
of a case give rise to removal jurisdiction, we strictly construe the right to remove and apply a general 
presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal 
jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th 
Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). 
The Defendant hasn’t met its burden here. To be sure, it has adduced evidence that the amount 
in controversy might exceed the requisite minimum. But “speculation that the amount in controversy 
me[e]t[s] the jurisdictional threshold d[oes] not satisfy” the Defendant’s burden. Bradley v. Kelly Servs., 
Inc., 224 F. App’x 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Thornton by & through Hawthorne v. United Am. Ins. 
Co., 2019 WL 2321188, at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 29, 2019) (“[W]here . . . a plaintiff makes unsupported 
allegations regarding her purported damages during discovery exchanges, those naked assertions are 
not given great weight in making a damages assessment.”). 
“Under well -settled pleading principles, the plaintiff is the master of the statement of his 
claim.” 14A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3702 (4th ed. 2025). 
So, “if the plaintiff chooses to ask for less than the federal jurisdictional amount in a state court 
complaint, absent a showing of bad faith only the sum actually demanded is in controversy even though the 
pleader’s motivation is to defeat removal.” Ibid. (emphasis added). We thus cannot say that the 
Defendant has established unambiguously that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. And since 
“all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand, ” Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. 
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) , we must send this case back to state court , see Wilson 
v. Hearos, LLC, 128 F.4th 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2025) (“[T]he statute provides two bases for remand: 
(1) a lack of subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any time before final judgment or (2) a 
defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that must be raised within 30 days after filing of 
the notice of removal.”). 
Case 1:26-cv-23767-RKA Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2026 Page 2 of 3
3 
 
CONCLUSION 
 Accordingly, we ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 
1. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. 
2. All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED , and all other pending motions are 
DENIED as MOOT. 
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 11, 2026. 
 
 
 
 _________________________________ 
 ROY K. ALTMAN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
cc: counsel of record 
Case 1:26-cv-23767-RKA Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2026 Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight