UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

NANCY NIETER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-126-SPC-NPM

HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS Pharmacy #5187,

Defendant. /

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Holiday CVS, L.L.C.’s Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1). For the reasons outlined below, Defendant must supplement the Notice. A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. See

(a). “The existence of federal jurisdiction is tested at the time of removal.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg,

(11th Cir. 2008);

(c). And “a removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car,

(11th Cir. 2002). Defendant removed this premises-liability action by invoking diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See

(a). Here, the amount in controversy is dubious at best.

To establish the amount in controversy, Defendant relies exclusively on a one-million-dollar Proposal for Settlement that Plaintiff served in state court. (Doc. 1-2). That’s it.1 But a proposal for settlement—standing alone—does not establish the amount in controversy. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

No. 6:18-CV-554-ORL-37DCI,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2018), report and recommendation adopted,

(July 24, 2018). And the proposal itself “lacks any specific information to explain why [one-million dollars] is a reasonable assessment of the value of [Plaintiff’s] claim, nor does

the record in this case support such a conclusion.” Hamilton v. Crete Carrier Corp., No. 3:24-CV-574-MMH-MCR,

, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2024) (emphasis original) (finding a bare proposal for settlement did little to establish the amount in controversy). This suggests Plaintiff’s settlement

demand is nothing more than puffery. See Auclair v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 2:21- CV-18-JLB-MRM,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021) (explaining that courts draw a distinction between “settlement offers steeped in puffery and posturing” and “those yielding information and a reasonable

1 In a prior attempt at removing this action, Defendant relied on a civil cover sheet to establish the amount in controversy. But as the Court advised Defendant then, “the civil cover sheet is not a verified pleading or material evidence on the amount in controversy.” Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C, No. 2:24-CV-949-SPC-KCD,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2024). assessment of value”). Without more, the Court is not satisfied that Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: On or before March 6, 2025, Defendant must SUPPLEMNT its Notice of Removal consistent with this Order. Failure to do so will result in remand without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 20, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record