Tran v. Waste Management, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 6:03-CV-127-ORL22JGG.,6:03-CV-127-ORL22JGG. |
| Citation | 290 F.Supp.2d 1286 |
| Parties | Huong Thi TRAN, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of No Van Nguyen, Plaintiff, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; Clark Equipment Company; Bobcat of Orlando, Inc.; and William Doug Fravel, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Phares M. Heindl, Law Offices of Phares M. Heindl, Altamonte Springs, FL, for Plaintiff.
Robert James Jack, Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, FL, James Stephen Usich, Law Offices of James S. Usich, P.A., Miami, FL, Brian Douglas DeGailler, Broussard, Cullen & DeGallier, Orlando, FL, Richard N. Staten, Stump, Webster, Craig, Staten & Recksiedler, P.A., for Defendants.
The cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff's, Huong Thi Tran, as personal representative of the Estate of No Van Nguyen, Motion to Remand and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 10), filed February 24, 2003, to which the Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, responded (Doc. No. 15) on March 7, 2003. Oral argument on the motion was held on May 8, 2003 (Doc. No. 41), and United States Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook issued a Report and Recommendation on May 27, 2003 (Doc. No. 44). In his memorandum opinion, Judge Glazebrook recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion be granted, and that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. See Doc. No. 44 at 8. The Defendants, Bobcat of Orlando, Inc. and Clark Equipment Company, filed Objections (Docs. No. 49 & 50 respectively) to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 44), and a memorandum of law in support thereof (Doc. No. 51) on June 13, 2003. The Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for doing so has expired. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 44) and the Defendants' Objections thereto (Docs. No. 49 & 50), this Court OVERRULES the Objections (Docs. No. 49 & 50), and AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Judge Glazebrook's well-reasoned memorandum opinion (Doc. No. 44).
The Plaintiff, Huong Thi Tran, is a citizen of the State of Florida,1 and is the personal representative of the Estate of No Van Nguyen ("Mr. Van Nguyen"),2 her husband.3 The Defendant, Waste Management, Inc. ("Waste Management Corporation"), is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in the State of Texas.4 The Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in the State of New Jersey.5 The Defendant, Bobcat of Orlando, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in the State of Florida.6 The Defendant, William Doug Fravel ("Mr.Fravel"), is a citizen of the State of Florida.7 This action is for personal injuries arising out of an industrial vehicle collision occurring in Orange County, Florida.8
In September of 2000, Mr. Van Nguyen was employed as a material sorter with Recycle America of Orange County ("Recycle America"),9 a division of the Waste Management Corporation.10 In his capacity as a material sorter, Mr. Van Nguyen was responsible for sorting through cardboard recyclables in order to remove contaminated materials.11 Once Mr. Van Nguyen's sorting duties were completed, a Bobcat Skid Steer Loader pushed the cardboard onto a conveyer belt, which inserted the cardboard into a bailer, where the cardboard was baled.12
On or about September 27, 2000, while Mr. Van Nguyen was sorting through a large pile of cardboard, his supervisor, Mr Fravel, backed a Bobcat Skid Steer Loader into his person.13 As a result, Mr. Van Nguyen suffered blunt force trauma to his head and chest, and he was killed instantly.14 It is apparent that the Clark Equipment Company ("Clark") designed, assembled, and manufactured the Bobcat Skid Steer Loader.15 Bobcat of Orlando, Inc. ("Bobcat"), is a business unit of Clark.16
In connection with that accident, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16-768.27.17 Count I of the First Amended Complaint alleges a cause of action for intentional negligence against the Waste Management Corporation;18 Count II alleges a cause of action for gross negligence against Mr. Fravel;19 Count III alleges a cause of action for strict liability product defects against Clark;20 Count IV alleges a cause of action for strict liability against Bobcat21; and Count V alleges a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability against Bobcat.22 The lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Orange County, Florida ("the state court") on August 20, 2002.23
On January 31, 2003, Clark filed a Petition for Removal from the state court to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144124 and 1446.25 Although the Plaintiff and two of the Defendants, Mr. Fravel and Bobcat, are citizens of the State of Florida, removal was based on diversity jurisdiction.26 In that regard, the Petition for Removal states as follows:
Although Plaintiff and Defendant WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL are both citizens of the State of Florida, this case is nonetheless removable because WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL has been fraudulently joined. Defendant, WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL, at all times material hereto, was a co-employee with the Defendant, NO VAN NGUYEN working at Recycle America of Orange County ... WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL is entitled to protection under Florida Statute § 440.11, Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy. Because Plaintiff cannot state a clause of action against WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL[,] WILLIAM DOUG FRAVEL has been fraudulently joined and his citizenship should be disregarded for the purposes of diversity.27
* * * * * *
Although Plaintiff and Defendant, BOBCAT OF ORLANDO, INC., are both citizens of Florida, this case is nonetheless removable because BOBCAT OF ORLANDO, INC., has been fraudulently joined. BOBCAT OF ORLANDO, INC. did not sell the subject ... loader ... Because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against BOBCAT OF ORLANDO, INC., BOBCAT OF ORLANDO, INC. has been fraudulently joined [and] its citizenship should be disregarded for diversity purposes.28
On February 24, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to the state court on the grounds that removal was defective because there was no fraudulent joinder and the Defendants failed to meet the burden of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction.29 Oral argument on the motion was held on May 8, 2003,30 and United States Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook issued a Report and Recommendation on May 27, 2003.31 In his memorandum opinion, Judge Glazebrook recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion be granted, and that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida because the Defendants failed to show "any fraudulent joinder."32
This Court must now consider the Defendants', Bobcat of Orlando, Inc. and Clark Equipment Company, Objections to Judge Glazebrook's recommendations.33
In their Objections to Magistrate Judge Glazebrook's Report and Recommendation, the Defendants assign four points of error.34 First, they argue that Judge Glazebrook "failed to apply the correct standard in evaluating Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, because he considered only the bare allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint instead of the totality of the evidence before him."35 Second, they argue that Judge Glazebrook "failed to evaluate whether a Florida court could deem defendant William Doug Fravel to have been grossly negligent in light of Fla. Stat. [§ ] 440.11(1) ... and [relevant] deposition testimony."36 Third, they argue that Judge Glazebrook "failed to make any findings regarding whether Bobcat of Orlando, Inc. was fraudulently joined."37 And finally, they argue that Judge Glazebrook "failed to hold plaintiff to her burden of contesting either the allegations in Clark's Petition for Removal or Clark's proof of fraudulent joinder."38
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the district judge must make a de novo determination of the findings and/or recommendations to which any party objects.39 "This requires that the district judge `give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.'"40 "In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo."41 However, regardless of whether objections are filed, a district judge must review a magistrate's legal conclusions de novo.42 After reviewing a report and recommendation, objections, and responses thereto, the district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.43
The Constitution and Congress limit a federal court's jurisdiction by restricting the types of cases which the federal courts may hear.44
For this reason, statutes authorizing removal of actions to federal courts are to be strictly construed against removal.45 In fact, because "[f]ederal courts are of limited jurisdiction, ... there is a presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand."46
A removing party must present facts establishing its right to remove.47 When the removing party fails to do so, remand is favored. Nevertheless, a federal court should "be cautious about remand, lest it erroneously deprive [a] defendant of the right to a federal forum."48
It is well established that for removal to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 "no defendant can be a citizen of the state in which the action was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Jack V. Waters, D.C., P.C.
...v. Allstate Ins., No. CIV 08-0366 MV/KBM, 2009 WL 10666369, at *2 (D.N.M. March 30, 2009) (Vázquez, J.); Tran v. Waste Mgmt., 290 F.Supp.2d 1286 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (Conway, J.)).4. The Motion to Compel.The Waters Defendants seek to compel arbitration. See Motion to Compel at 1. They argue tha......
-
Mukamal v. Bmo Harris Bank N.A. (In re Palm Beach Fin. Partners, L.P.)
...or from the more extreme willful or wanton disregard thereof (as in culpable or criminal negligence).” Tran v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 290 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1294 (M.D.Fla.2003). There is nothing in the Plaintiffs allegations that distinguishes it from a claim for ordinary negligence or indicates a......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Foxx
...and (3) an act of omission occurring in a manner which evinces a conscious disregard of the consequences. Tran v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 290 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1294 (M.D.Fla.2003). In the instant case, Foxx has failed to plead factual allegations sufficient to meet this standard. Foxx's allegation......
-
Grant v. Rotolante
...costs under § 1447(c) is within the Court's discretion. Rae v. Perry, 392 F. App'x 753, 754 (11th Cir. 2010); Tran v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2003). A showing of bad faith is not necessary as a predicate to the award of attorney's fees. Tran, 290 F. Supp. at......
-
Civil litigation
...the resident defendant has no real connection to the claims against the nonresident defendants.” [ Tran v. Waste Management, Inc ., 290 F. Supp.2d 1286 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2003).] §1:153 Motion to Remand The plaintiff may challenge removal of the case to federal court by moving to remand the ca......