Opinion
Case No: 8:20-cv-771-CEH-JSS
04-17-2020
PRIME TIME SPORTS GRILL, INC., d/b/a PRIME TIME SPORTS BAR, Plaintiff, v. DTW 1991 UNDERWRITING LIMITED, A CERTAIN INTERESTED UNDERWRITER AT LLOYD'S LONDON, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) and the jurisdictional concerns raised in the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5). In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requests declaratory judgment against Defendant DTW 1991 Underwriting Limited, a Certain Underwriter at Lloyd's London. (Doc. 6). Subject matter jurisdiction in this action is purportedly based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, with an alleged amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. See id. ¶ 2.
As this Court stated in its previous Order, "[t]he jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim involves the court's competency to consider a given type of case, and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties." Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1000 (11th Cir. 1982). Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004); Univ. of South Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Hence, the Court explained that neither Defendant's citizenship nor the amount in controversy had been adequately established in the original complaint (Doc. 1) and allowed Plaintiff to file a response or an amended complaint (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required to confer jurisdiction on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Doc. 6). Plaintiff alleges that the March 17, 2020, governmental suspension of business operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic has caused it to lose more than $15,000 in net profit and incur more than $60,000 in operating expenses. (Doc. 6 ¶ 6). In addition, Plaintiff states that due to Florida's state-wide "stay at home" order implemented April 1, 2020, the harm to its business is likely to continue in the future, resulting in excess of $30,000 in net profit and $120,000 in operating expenses, including payroll by April 17, 2020. See id. In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests a declaration that the policy issued to it by Defendant DTW 1991 covers losses stemming from the COVID-19 governmental suspension of business operations for business income, extra expense, and all other coverage extensions up to the limits of the policy ($200,000.00). See id. at ¶ 14(a).
Importantly, the amount in controversy must be satisfied at the time the complaint is filed. See Marraccini v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 02-20896-CIV, 2003 WL 22668842, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2003) ("[F]ederal courts have diversity jurisdiction over an action where the claims satisfy the amount in controversy requirement at the time that the complaint was filed."). While the complaint seeks declaratory relief, which makes the amount in controversy 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), "diversity jurisdiction cannot be founded on contingencies or speculation about what may or may not happen in the future," Mann v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:12-CV-1343-T-27EAJ, 2012 WL 12897381, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012). Moreover, that policy limits may potentially be at issue is still speculative at this time and insufficient for establishing the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lutz v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Again, Plaintiff has not shown that more than $75,000, is in controversy as of the time the Amended Complaint was filed.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE as to why the Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff shall file a written response with the Court within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order, or a Second Amended Complaint, which cures the jurisdictional deficiencies, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order. Failure to respond to this Order within the time provided will result in this action being dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 17, 2020.
/s/_________
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record