The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner, United States District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which motion was filed May 3, 2011. On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed. For the reasons articulated below, I deny defendant's motion to dismiss.
Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida. Defendant is a citizen of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds of $75,000.00.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs' claims allegedly occurred within this judicial district.
On February 28, 2011 plaintiff Rachel Clark filed her Complaint against defendant Amirah Windlebleck. In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent while driving her automobile and that defendant's vehicle struck the rear of plaintiff's vehicle, causing plaintiff to sustain injuries.
On March 25, 2011 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint was filed. The motion contends that plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction because her Complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. *fn1
By my Order dated April 5, 2011 and filed April 7,
2011, I determined that plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Specifically, plaintiff failed to properly allege the citizenship of each party. Accordingly, I ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint and dismissed defendant's original motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to re-file, after plaintiff filed her amended complaint.
In my April 5, 2011 Order, I specifically declined to rule on the merits of defendant's motion to dismiss, but I granted plaintiff leave to amend, in order to establish diversity of citizenship, and also to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. I noted that in the event defendant sought dismissal of an amended complaint, plaintiff might not be granted leave to re-plead again.
On April 20, 2011 plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint. On May 3, 2011 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed, contending that plaintiff fails to set forth facts sufficient to ...