United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff George Bolden's
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand 
(“Motion”). Defendant QuikTrip Corporation
(“QuikTrip”) did not file an opposition.
filed this action in the State Court of Gwinnett County
seeking damages from a slip and fall at a QuikTrip store.
( at 6-11). Plaintiff requests an award of “current
medical special damages” in the amount of $11, 154.48,
“future medical special damages from Defendant in an
amount to be provided prior to trial, ” and
“general damages from Defendant in accordance with the
enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, ” and
interest and costs. ( at 10).
February 20, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal .
Defendant alleged diversity jurisdiction, stating that
Plaintiff's requested “damages will allegedly
exceed $75, 000.” ( at 2).
March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand
 this action to the State Court of Gwinnett County.
Plaintiff contends that “Defendant's unsupported
allegation contained in the notice of removal that
‘these damages will allegedly exceed $75, 000' does
not meet the jurisdictional requirements of establishing
federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b).” ([5.1] at 3). Defendant did not file an
opposition to the Motion.
burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with the
defendant seeking removal.” Scimone v. Carnival
Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013). When
jurisdiction is based on diversity, the removing defendant,
by a preponderance of the evidence, must prove that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.
Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th
Cir. 2001); Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d
1184, 1210 (11th Cir. 2007). Defendant must show that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Allen v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., 155 Fed.Appx. 480, 481 (11th Cir. 2005).
“A conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that
the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth
the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is
insufficient to meet the defendant's burden.”
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319-20. “[W]here
plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction,
uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.”
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th
basis removal on diversity jurisdiction. There is no dispute
that the parties in this case are of diverse citizenship. The
only jurisdictional question is whether the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. §
removal is only permissible when Plaintiff's claim could
have been filed in federal court originally, the Court looks
to Plaintiff's claim to determine whether removal was
appropriate. Plaintiff's complaint specifically requests
$11, 154.48 in damages. That amount is far below the
jurisdictional threshold of $75, 000. Burns, 31 F.3d
at 1095 (no jurisdiction existed on the face of
plaintiff's claim where damages alleged were $5, 000
below the threshold).
Plaintiff also seeks unspecified “future medical
special damages” and “general damages” from
Defendant does not establish a proper basis for jurisdiction.
Defendant has not provided any evidence supporting its
assertion that “damages will allegedly exceed $75,
000.” ( at 2); Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319-
20 (conclusory allegation that jurisdictional amount is
satisfied is insufficient to support removal jurisdiction).
Nor can the Court reasonably conclude without additional
evidence that total damages will exceed $75, 000 given that
the specific amount sought by Plaintiff ($11, 154.48) falls
well short of the threshold. To reach such a conclusion, the
Court would necessarily need to engage in impermissible
speculation-evaluating without the benefit of any evidence
the value of Plaintiff's claims. Lowery v. Alabama
Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1220 (11th Cir. 2007).
possibility that Defendant may seek or recover more damages
in the future is insufficient to support federal jurisdiction
now. This Court does not have removal jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1441(b) because Defendant has not shown the