Clarifying the Amount‐in‐Controversy Standard: Punitive Damages vs. Attorney’s Fees and FDUTPA Penalties in Jordan v. The Closet Factory Franchise Corporation

1. Introduction

Joshua Jordan, proceeding pro se, filed suit against The Closet Factory Franchise Corporation, its local franchise, and individual representatives, alleging breach of contract, multiple counts of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The heart of the dispute was Closet Factory’s alleged failure to install promised “soft-close” features in custom closets, compounded by alleged misrepresentations about licensing, registration, and online reputation management. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and the district court dismissed for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction on the ground that Jordan had not shown more than $75,000 in controversy. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, clarifying the rules for including (or excluding) certain categories of damages in the diversity‐jurisdiction calculus.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam decision issued April 14, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit held that:

• Pro se litigants cannot include hypothetical or statutory attorney’s fees in the amount‐in‐controversy calculation unless they have actually incurred and paid such fees.
• Civil penalties under the FDUTPA are available only to state enforcement authorities (e.g., the state attorney or attorney general), not to private plaintiffs, and thus cannot be counted in a private plaintiff’s amount in controversy.
• Punitive damages properly pleaded under state law must be included in the jurisdictional tally unless it is “legally certain” that they cannot be recovered.

Because Jordan had alleged punishable torts and sought maximum statutory punitive awards for each claim, those amounts could count toward the $75,000 threshold. The court found no clear‐to‐a‐legal‐certainty bar to his recovery of punitive damages, and thus remanded for further proceedings.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Barrett v. Bureau of Customs (651 F.2d 1087): Established that a pro se litigant may recover attorney’s fees only if they have in fact hired counsel and incurred fees.
• Clarkson v. IRS (678 F.2d 1368): Reaffirmed the Barrett rule in Eleventh Circuit jurisdictional analysis.
• Duderwicz v. Sweetwater Savings Ass’n (595 F.2d 1008): Emphasized that state law defines the rights and remedies relevant to calculating the amount in controversy.
• Holley Equipment Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (821 F.2d 1531): Held that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy unless it is legally certain they cannot be awarded.
• Barry v. Edmunds (116 U.S. 550): Described the “legal certainty” standard that allows a court to disregard inflated damage projections in the jurisdictional inquiry.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion proceeds in three analytical steps:

1. Attorney’s Fees: Jordan had listed a hypothetical $71,575 in attorney’s fees. Under Barrett and Clarkson, pro se plaintiffs may not project attorney’s fees they have not actually incurred. The district court found, without clear error, that Jordan had not hired counsel, so those fees could not be counted.
2. FDUTPA Civil Penalties: FDUTPA’s statutory civil‐penalty provision is available only to designated “enforcing authorities.” Because Jordan was a private plaintiff, these penalties were unavailable, and thus properly excluded from his amount‐in‐controversy figure.
3. Punitive Damages: Under Holley, punitive damages must be added to the jurisdictional total unless it is “legally certain” they could not be awarded. Jordan alleged willful and fraudulent conduct sufficient under Florida Statutes §§ 768.72–.73 to permit punitive awards, and he had pleaded the maximum amounts for nine separate counts. The court found no legal‐certainty bar to disallowing them.

In sum, Jordan could count his $17,233.52 in actual damages plus the aggregated punitive requests (approximately $465,305.04), which together exceeded $75,000. The Eleventh Circuit therefore held that subject‐matter jurisdiction existed and remanded for merits proceedings.

3.3 Impact

This decision provides important guideposts for plaintiffs and federal courts in diversity cases:

• Pro se plaintiffs should not attempt to inflate jurisdictional amounts through speculative or unincurred attorney’s fees.
• Plaintiffs pursuing FDUTPA claims should be aware that statutory civil penalties may not be available to them unless the state is the plaintiff.
• Courts should include well‐pleaded punitive damage claims in the jurisdictional computation unless it is legally certain they cannot be recovered.

By reaffirming these principles, the Eleventh Circuit ensures consistency with binding precedent and promotes judicial economy by clarifying which elements of claimed relief may be counted for purposes of determining subject‐matter jurisdiction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Diversity Jurisdiction & Amount in Controversy

Federal courts can hear cases between citizens of different states if the amount at stake exceeds $75,000. All components of claimed damages—actual, punitive, attorney’s fees, statutory penalties—must be examined to see which may be lawfully counted.

Pro Se Attorney’s Fees Rule

A plaintiff who represents himself without hiring a lawyer cannot claim lawyer’s fees in the jurisdictional calculation unless he actually engaged counsel and paid for legal services.

FDUTPA Enforcement Authority

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act allows only state officials (e.g., attorney general) to recover civil penalties; private citizens can sue for actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief, but not statutory fines.

Punitive Damages & “Legal Certainty”

Punitive damages are intended to punish wrongful behavior. For jurisdictional purposes, a well‐pleaded claim for punitive damages is counted unless it is “legally certain” the plaintiff could never win such damages under governing state law.

5. Conclusion

In Joshua Jordan v. The Closet Factory Franchise Corporation, the Eleventh Circuit clarified the contours of the amount‐in‐controversy inquiry in diversity jurisdiction cases. It confirmed that:

• Unincurred attorney’s fees claimed by a pro se litigant cannot be included;
• FDUTPA civil penalties are not countable by a private plaintiff;
• Properly pleaded punitive damages must be included unless it is legally certain they cannot be awarded.

This decision reinforces existing precedent and offers a roadmap for litigants and district courts when assessing whether a federal diversity action satisfies the $75,000 threshold. It underscores the importance of careful pleading and the need to distinguish between recoverable and non-recoverable elements of relief in jurisdictional calculations.