Neitzelt v. Gould et al
Filing
14
ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Appearance of Counsel, Motion to Transfer the Case, and Motion for Sanctions filed on January 11, 2017. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/18/2017. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ERIN NEITZELT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-898-FtM-99CM
RACHEL GOULD and THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF LEE COUNTY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Erin Neitzelt’s Emergency Motion
for Appearance of Counsel, Motion to Transfer the Case, and Motion for Sanctions filed
January 11, 2017. (Doc. #11). Defendants filed a response two days later. (Doc. #12).
This matter is ripe for review. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety.
Background
Plaintiff, a former teacher employed in Lee County, was allegedly forced to resign.
Plaintiff’s primary allegation is that she was discriminated against and constructively
terminated because of her gender and/or national origin. (Doc. #2, ¶ 6). On December
2, 2016, Plaintiff sued in state court alleging six state claims and one claim under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act. Shortly thereafter, Defendants removed the case to the Middle
District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiff’s counsel is not
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
licensed to practice in the Middle District of Florida which led to counsel for both parties
exchanging several emails regarding the removal of this case to federal court. (Doc. #12).
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to appear on her client’s behalf. (Doc. #11, ¶ 1).
Plaintiff claims Defendants’ removal was improper and “requests that her case be
transferred back to” state court. (Doc. #11, ¶ 6). Plaintiff then asserts Defendants’ motion
to dismiss (Doc. #4) constitutes a “sham” pleading because defense counsel knew that
Plaintiff’s counsel could not practice in the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. #11, ¶ 10).
Defendants do not object to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking admission to the Middle District of
Florida however, Defendants oppose the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. #12, p. 1).
Discussion
A. Appearance of Counsel
Plaintiff’s counsel requests to appear in court on behalf of her client despite not
being admitted to the Middle District of Florida. (Doc #11, ¶ 1).
Plaintiff’s counsel is
licensed in the Southern District of Florida. The Middle District of Florida Local Rules state
that “[n]o person shall be permitted to appear or be heard as counsel for another in any
proceeding in this Court unless first admitted to practice in the Court.” M.D. Fla. R.
2.01(a).
Local Rule 2.01(b) also provides the application process for admission.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that she has begun the application process (Doc #11, ¶ 1),
which she shall continue to do. Although there are circumstances in which an attorney
may be permitted to practice before the court without formal admission under Local Rule
2.02, this motion fails to indicate what special circumstances apply in this situation.
2
B. Removal
Next, Plaintiff asserts that the removal was improper because the state court had
concurrent jurisdiction and “the case can only be properly removed if it should have been
in Federal Court.” (Doc. #11, ¶¶ 2-6). Defendants assert that removal was proper. (Doc.
#12, pp. 4-5).
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if plaintiff
could have originally sued in federal district court as a civil action “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” under 28 USC, §1331. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). A case “aris[es] under” federal law if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes
either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief
necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire
HealthChoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006). “The existence of
federal jurisdiction is tested at the time of removal. [ ] In determining whether jurisdiction
exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a court must look to the well-pleaded complaint alone. [ ]
Thus, to meet their burden, the defendants must show that the plaintiffs’ complaint, as it
existed at the time of removal, provides an adequate basis for the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir.
2008).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, a defendant does not have to wait for the state court
to rule on jurisdiction. (Doc. #11, ¶ 6). Defendants need not show the case should have
been brought in federal court. Instead, removal is proper if the claim could have been
brought in federal court. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #2) alleges violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because the Title VII claim falls within this Court’s
3
original jurisdiction, this case could have been brought in federal court. Therefore,
Defendants’ removal was proper.
C. Sanctions
Finally, Plaintiff argues sanctions should be imposed because defense counsel
was notified “several times that she is not a member of the Middle District and cannot
respond to pleadings.” (Doc. #11, ¶ 7-10). Defendants respond that Plaintiff mistakenly
relies on Florida law in arguing for sanctions. (Doc. #12, p. 5). Defendants further
respond that every effort was made to accommodate Plaintiff’s counsel and resolve this
dispute to no avail. (Doc. #12, p. 6).
The Court directs Plaintiff to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which
authorizes a court to impose sanctions on an attorney. Sanctions may be proper where
the attorney files a pleading, motion or other paper with an improper purpose such as to
harass or delay the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. “Such sanctions are imposed for the
purpose of deterrence, compensation, and punishment.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon, &
Nielsen, P.A., 152 F.R.D. 648, 651 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is without basis. Defendants do not have to wait
for opposing counsel to complete her application to practice in the Middle District of
Florida prior to filing for removal or continue litigating their case. Defendants’ removal
and subsequent motions are properly filed; therefore, sanctions are not appropriate.
D. Other Matters
Plaintiff’s counsel should review the Middle District of Florida Local Rules and
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure compliance. The Court will address some—
not all—procedural rules Plaintiff has violated.
4
First, the term “emergency” in the title of a motion should only be used in
extraordinary circumstances—when there is a true and legitimate emergency.
This
motion does not constitute an emergency. “The unwarranted designation of a motion as
an emergency motion may result in the imposition of sanctions.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(e).
Second, Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that counsel confer with the opposing party
before filing certain non-dispositive motions and to state whether the opposing party
agrees on the resolution of the motion. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). Plaintiff failed to include this
statement in this motion.
Third, the Court received a letter correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel
requesting sanctions because defense counsel failed to provide her with a copy of the
notice of removal. Such communication with the Court is inappropriate. See M.D. Fla.
R. 3.01(f) (“All applications to the Court . . . requesting relief in any form . . . shall not be
addressed or presented to the Court in the form of a letter or the like”).
In conclusion, future failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but
not limited to, striking improper filings.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Appearance of Counsel, Motion to Transfer the
Case, and Motion for Sanctions filed on January 11, 2017 (Doc. #11) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of January, 2017.
Copies: All Parties of Record
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?