Joynt v. Volusia Cnty. & Star Ins. Co., Case No. 6:14-cv-1524-Orl-40DAB
| Decision Date | 18 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:14-cv-1524-Orl-40DAB |
| Parties | ERIN JOYNT, Plaintiff, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY and STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on Defendant Star Insurance Company's ("Star") Response (19) to this Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 9) and on the following motion filed herein:
At issue in both the show cause Order and the motion to remand is whether this matter has been improvidently removed. Upon review of the record evidence, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction in this matter, and respectfully recommends that the matter be remanded to state court, without an award of attorney's fees for the improvident removal.
The pertinent history is contained in the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1 and Exhibits), a state court hearing transcript filed by Star (Doc. 18), Star's Response to the show cause Order (Doc. 19), the motion to remand and attached exhibits (Doc. 20), and Star's opposition to the remand motion (Doc. 21). By way of summary, the following matters are not disputed and are relevant for present purposes.
On April 5, 2012, Plaintiff Erin Joynt filed a complaint in state court against sole defendant Volusia County, Florida, alleging injuries arising from automobile negligence. See Doc. 1-2, state court docket in Erin Joynt v. Volusia County, Case No. 2012-11144-CIDL. The state law claim was litigated to a jury verdict in Plaintiff's favor, rendered on June 27, 2014 (state court doc. 280).
On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff moved in state court to amend her complaint to add Star Insurance Company, the county's excess insurer (state court doc. 302). Star appeared in the state court proceeding (state court doc. 308) and opposed the motion in a memorandum (state court doc. 315) and at hearing held on August 18, 2014 (transcript at Doc. 18 in the instant case). That same day, August 18, 2014, a Final Judgment was entered by the state court against Volusia County in the amount of $2,600,000.00 (Doc. 1-6). On August 19, 2014, the state court issued an Amended Final Judgment for Plaintiff (Doc. 1-7). The Amended Judgment provided that: "Jurisdiction is retained to determine and award taxable costs, and to determine entitlement, and, if necessary, the amount of attorney's fees." Id.
On August 22, 2014, after the entry of Judgment, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint in the state court case, in which she added Star as a defendant (Doc. 1-8).1 The pleading purports to allege an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, asserting that there is"a bona fide actual, present and practical need for the interpretation of the Policy language and a declaration as to STAR INSURANCE COMPANY's obligations and VOLUSIA COUNTY's rights, as well as ERIN JOYNT's third party beneficiary rights." (Doc. 1-8, Allegation 27).
Star filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in state court on September 11, 2014 (state court doc. 325). On September 16, 2014, Volusia County answered the Third Amended Complaint (state court doc. 327) and, on September 17, 2014, the County filed a Notice of Appeal of the Amended Final Judgment (state court doc. 327.752).
On September 19, 2014, after all of the foregoing, Star filed a Notice of Removal, citing the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) (Doc. 1). Upon review of the Notice of Removal, this Court was in doubt as to exactly what Defendant was purporting to remove and suspected that the case was not within the subject matter jurisdiction of federal court. As such, an Order to Show Cause was issued (Doc. 9). Star has since responded (Doc. 19).
On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorney's fees and costs (Doc. 20). Star has responded to that motion (Doc. 21), and the District Court referred the matter to the undersigned for consideration along with the show cause response. To date, no papers regarding the show cause or the motion for remand have been filed in this matter by Defendant Volusia County and the time for doing so has passed. The issue of jurisdiction is now ripe for review.
Federal court removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides in pertinent part that "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or the defendants to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." In addition to federal question jurisdiction, whichis not implicated here, a district court has original jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are of diverse citizenship and "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists only when there is complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the amount in controversy requirement is met. See Owen Equip. and Recreation Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978).
Removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (). Any doubt as to proper subject matter jurisdiction should be resolved against removal. The removing party has the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence and the removing party must present facts establishing its right to remove. Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). When the defendant fails to do so, the case must be remanded. Williams, 269 F.3d at 1321.
With respect to removal procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) provides that in a case not originally removable, a defendant may only remove within 30 days of receiving "an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which ... has become removable." However, no case may be removed more than one year after the commencement of the action unless the defendant can show the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal. Id. § 1446(c). Further, Section 1441(b)(2) states that, "[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2).
As is evident from the history of this dispute, Plaintiff Joynt sued Volusia County for negligence; obtained "final" judgment in her favor; amended her complaint to include Star only after final judgment was entered; and Star filed its Notice of Removal after that judgment was appealed to the state appellate court. The fact that the state court orally granted the motion to allow the complaint to be amended while entering "final" judgment on the same day raises a host of complicated and unusual jurisdictional questions. Nonetheless, because the Court finds that Star has not met its burden to establish that the Court has jurisdiction over any portion of the state court action, the Court concludes that removal was improvident, and remand is required.
Applying the general principles set forth above, the Court must first identify exactly what Star is attempting to remove and evaluate whether it is an action that is potentially removable. As the Court noted in the show cause Order:
(Doc. 9).
In addition to these matters, Plaintiff moves for remand asserting that there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction as "there is no amount in controversy" (Doc. 20, p. 1). Plaintiff further contends that Star waived...
To continue reading
Request your trial