Order | Filed: October 08, 2026
| Entered: October 08, 2026
Nikitina v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. et al
Motor Vehicle | Florida Middle
Order
ENDORSED ORDER: On September 30, 2026, defendant Werner Enterprises removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and when "damages are unspecified, the removing party bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence." Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy has been satisfied based upon, in part, plaintiff's settlement demand letter. (Doc. # 1 at 14). But "[s]ettlement offers do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction." Lamb v. State Farm Fire Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:10-cv-615-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010). Rather, courts evaluate whether demand letters "reflect puffing and posturing" or "whether they provide 'specific information to support the plaintiff's claim for damages.'" Id. (quoting Jackson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1281 (S.D. Ala. 2009)). Here, plaintiff's demand letter lists the following damages: $17,874.00 in incurred medical expenses, $640,600.00 in anticipated medical expenses, $16,560.00 in incurred pain and suffering, and $4,204,800.00 in future pain and suffering. (Doc. # 1-19). But "damages based on...future medical expenses, or pain and suffering are too speculative to include in the Court's [amount in controversy] calculation." Ulrich v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 8:22-cv-2541-VMC-AAS, 2022 WL 17336183, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2022). As such, only the incurred medical expenses of $17,874.00 can be included in a calculation of the amount in controversy. This is well below the $75,000 threshold. In addition to the demand letter, defendant relies upon $200,365.00 in estimated costs for procedures plaintiff was scheduled to undergo on July 30, 2026. (Doc. # 1 at 14). Although defendant removed this case on September 30, 2026 - two months after plaintiff was scheduled to undergo these procedures - the notice of removal does not indicate whether plaintiff had actually undergone these procedures or provide the actual costs for the procedures. At this juncture, the record does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy has been satisfied. Accordingly, by October 19, 2026, defendant Werner Enterprises is directed to provide the Court with any additional information establishing that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, failing which this matter will be remanded to state court. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/8/2026. (MD)