• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Harris Guidi Rosner, P.A.

Attorneys in Jacksonville, FL

Free Consultation | Call or Text:

904-777-7777

1837 Hendricks Ave, Jacksonville, FL 32207

Menu
  • Home
  • Areas of Practice
    • Personal Injury
    • Wrongful Death
    • Criminal Law
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Family Law / Divorce
    • Social Security Disability
    • Civil Law
    • Close
  • Attorneys
    • Jacksonville Attorney Robert Harris photoRobert Harris
    • Jacksonville Attorney Dennis Guidi photoDennis E. Guidi
    • Jacksonville Attorney Alan Rosner photoAlan Rosner
    • Attorney-Chase-Harris-menuChase Harris
    • Jacksonville Attorney Kendall Mills PhotoKendall Mills
    • Untitled designTimothy Miller
    • Attorney-Jerry-Pryor-menuJerry Pryor
    • Jacksonville Attorney Peter Shutters PhotoPeter Shutters
    • white-menuChris White
    • Attorney-Chris-Wilson-menuChris Wilson
    • Ronald ThumbnailRonald Bennett
    Close
  • About
    • Community Involvement
    • Awards & Memberships
    • Close
  • Results
    • Testimonials
    • Case Results
    • Close
  • FAQ’s
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • spaEn Español
Home » Personal Injury » Moving Personal Injury Case form State Court to Federal Court

Moving Personal Injury Case form State Court to Federal Court

August 18, 2017 by Peter Shutters

Moving Personal Injury Case form State Court to Federal Court

It is well established that removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal.  Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. vs. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941); Burns v. Windsor Ins., Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1094 (11th Cir.1994)(“[R] removal statutes are construed narrowly; [when the parties dispute jurisdiction], uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.”).  See also, American Fire & Cas. Co. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951).  The principle of strict construction of 28 U.S.C. §1441 is particularly applicable in cases involving diversity of citizenship. Gober v. Allstate Ins. Co., 855 F.Supp. 158 (S.D. Miss. 1995); Robinson v. Quality Ins. Co., 633 F.Supp 572 (S.D. Ala. 1096).

            The requirement that the minimum amount in controversy for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction be met is narrowly construed so as not to frustrate the congressional purpose of keeping the diversity caseload of federal courts under some modicum of control.  Pierson v. Source Perrier, S.A., 848 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D. Penn. 1994)(emphasis added), citing Packard v. Provident National Bank, 944 F.2d 1039 (3rd Cir. 1993).  All doubts concerning jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand.  Pierson, supra, citing, Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26 (3rd Cir. 1985).

            Defendants have a right by statute to remove in certain circumstances.  However, Plaintiff is still the master of his own claim.  Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994).  As such, the Defendant’s right to remove and Plaintiff’s right to choose his forum are not equal; removal statutes are construed narrowly and when a dispute arises as to jurisdiction, uncertainties should be resolved in favor of remand, Id. at 1097.   In determining whether a claim exceeds the jurisdictional limit, the standard to be used, when measuring the damages sought and amounts in controversy, is an objective one wherein the subjective intent or belief of the parties is not a proper measure.  Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., supra.  A removing party has the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists by preponderance of the evidence and the removing party must present facts establishing its right to remove.  If the removing party fails to meet this burden, the case must be remanded.  Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001).  See also, Libhart v. Santa Monica Diary Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1979).

            In other words, if a Defendant is only speculating that such a personal injury will no doubt be seeking damages in excess of the minimum requirements of $75,000.00, the removal should fail.  The Plaintiff, that makes the decision to file their action in the State’s Circuit Court, should not be moved to Federal Court without objective findings that the amount in controversy is in fact, in excess of the minimum requirements.

            Many insurance companies attempt to remove State actions to Federal Court because the pool of jury members will be broader and the amount of attorney time billable increases due to the amount of memorandums and writings necessary to move the case along to trial.  Plaintiff’s generally are seeking redress from a jury of “their peers”, which when pulled from within the County of the action, is a closer representation of that Plaintiff.

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Peter Shutters
Follow

Peter Shutters

Personal Injury Attorney at Harris Guidi Rosner, P.A.
Peter Shutters has fourteen years as an insurance defense attorney before joining Harris, Guidi & Rosner P.A. where he concentrates on Personal Injury cases.He has jury trial experience in a variety of Florida Counties, including, Duval, Clay, Marion, Orange, Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa. He has handled a number of appeals, including several oral arguments at the Fifth DCA in Volusia County.
Peter Shutters
Follow

Latest posts by Peter Shutters (see all)

  • What is Concert of Action? - September 26, 2017
  • Moving Personal Injury Case form State Court to Federal Court - August 18, 2017
  • What is Res Ipsa Loquitur? - June 26, 2017

Filed Under: Personal Injury

Free Consultation

Complete this form for a FREE No Obligation Consultation
Law books and gavel

What to Know About the Element of Causation in Personal Injury Cases

There are four key elements to the proof of any Tort action, including Personal Injury. They … [Read More...] about What to Know About the Element of Causation in Personal Injury Cases

Justice Symbol

Understanding Personal Injury Settlements and When They Should be Used

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 97% of personal injury lawsuits never go to … [Read More...] about Understanding Personal Injury Settlements and When They Should be Used

person on a wheel chair

Measuring and Compensating for Pain and Suffering in Florida

Injuries are an unfortunate reality that some people face. Often these cause varying degrees of pain … [Read More...] about Measuring and Compensating for Pain and Suffering in Florida

Post Categories

  • Civil Law (11)
  • Criminal Law (25)
  • Estate Planning (14)
  • Family Law (28)
  • Harris Guidi News (30)
  • Personal Injury (33)
  • Social Security (63)
  • Workers' Compensation (64)
  • Wrongful Death (8)
Martindale Hubbell Peer Review Rated PreeminentUS District CourtUS Supreme CourtAVVO Rating 10 out of 10Jacksonville Bar AssociationFlorida Bar AssociationInns of Court

Areas of Practice

Personal Injury
Criminal Law
Workers’ Compensation
Family Law
Social Security
Civil
Wrongful Death

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter

HARRIS, GUIDI, ROSNER, P.A.

1837 Hendricks Ave
Jacksonville, FL 32207

Phone (Call or Text): 904-777-7777
Secondary Phone: 888-262-4520
Fax: 904-399-1718
Email: harris@harrisguidi.com

© Copyright 2021 · Harrs Guidi Rosner, P.A. · All Rights Reserved.
Sitemap · Terms · Privacy