FRANCE v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
DANA FRANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.
__________________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-92–WLS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8). Plaintiff asks the Court to
Order the above-styled action, in its entirety, remanded to the State Court of Lowndes County,
Georgia, wherein the action was originally filed on the grounds that the Court lacks diversity
subject matter jurisdiction. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count II
of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 7) (“Motion to Dismiss”). The Court addresses each motion in
turn below.
I. 	MOTION TO REMAND
Plaintiff asserts that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1332 for federal court diversity jurisdiction. Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 17)
in which it asserts that it believes the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However,
Plaintiff states in her Motion to Remand that she limits her total damages to $75,000 or less.
(Doc. 8 at 2, 3). Further, she provided an affidavit in which she unequivocally states: “I hereby
affirm and stipulate that I do not seek, and will not accept, a total recovery in this action,
including compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, in
excess of $75,000.00.” (Doc. 8-1).
Plaintiff moves the Court to remand her claims to the State Court of Lowndes County,
Georgia, contending that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims. Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction. District courts may hear cases only in which there has been either
a constitutional or congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d
Case 7:25-cv-00092-WLS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1255, 1260–61 (11th Cir. 2000). Generally, a defendant may remove a civil action in instances
where the federal court would have had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(b). Under
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), however, the Court must remand any action in which the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. All doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand
to state court, “because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns.” Univ. of S.
Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.
Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108–109 (1941)).
Congress has granted federal district courts jurisdiction to hear cases between citizens
of different States which involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, excluding costs.
28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Dismissal of a case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is proper where the
pleadings make it clear ‘to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional
amount.’” Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). Because Plaintiff stipulates and
affirms by affidavit that damages do not exceed $75,000, the allegations and briefing make it
clear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount. Other
than a bare assertion and calculations based on speculation, Defendant neither presents nor
points to evidence to the contrary. Significantly, Defendant’s calculations include, without
explanation of its source, a breach of contract claim of $34,738.71. However, as she points
out, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter includes estimated damages of $21,211.80. (Docs. 8-2 &
1-2). Defendant’s addition of bad faith penalty and attorney fees as a percentage of the
speculated $34,738.71 is disingenuous and the speculated addition of $10,000 in litigation
expenses simply reflect its efforts to create diversity jurisdiction where none exists. Finally,
Defendant does not challenge or question Plaintiff’s stipulation to the limitation of the amount
in controversy.
Accordingly, 	for 	the 	reasons 	explained 	above, 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	(Doc. 	8) 	is
GRANTED. The above-styled action is REMANDED in its entirety to the State Court of
Lowndes County, Georgia.
Case 7:25-cv-00092-WLS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
II. 	MOTION TO DISMISS
The Court further finds that, in view of the above ruling, it need not consider the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is
remanded for consideration by the receiving court.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of January 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00092-WLS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3