Naples Laser and Medspa, Inc. et al v. Images Med Spa Mokena, LLC et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER directing the Clerk to remand the case to the Lee County Circuit Court, transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that court, terminate all pending deadlines, and to close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/28/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NAPLES LASER AND MEDSPA,
INC., a Florida corporation,
NAPLES LASER AND MEDSPA OF
BONITA
SPRINGS,
INC.,
a
Florida
corporation,
and
PAMELA
J.
NEITZEL,
an
individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-101-FtM-99MRM

IMAGES MED SPA MOKENA, LLC,
an
Illinois
limited
liability company, JEFFREY
M. GLAZER, an individual,
SCOTT
D.
GLAZER,
an
individual, and CAROLINE D.
MORRIS, an individual,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants'
Response to Order and Supplement to Notice of Removal (Doc. #8)
filed on February 24, 2017.

The Court’s February 17, 2017, Order

(Doc. #4) had directed defendants to supplement their Notice of
Removal, or to show cause why the case should not be remanded, as
to the alleged amount in controversy, the citizenship of the
members of Images Med Spa Mokena, LLC, and the citizenship of the
individual plaintiff (Pamela J. Neitzel).
A defendant or defendants may remove a civil action from state
court by (1) notice of removal, (2) signed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11, (3) containing a “short and plain statement of the
grounds

for

removal”,

with

(4)

a

copy

of

defendant or defendants in the state court.

filings

served

on

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

The Court is satisfied that the members of defendant Images Med
Spa Mokena, LLC are Jeffrey Glazer and Scott Glazer, and both are
domiciled in Illinois.

(Doc. #8, ¶ 1.)

Defendants have not

identified any good faith basis under Rule 11 which would have
allowed them to assert the citizenship of plaintiff Pamela J.
Neitzel’s or a sufficient amount in controversy.

Defendants seek

the opportunity to conduct discovery in federal court in order to
obtain

the

hoped

for

factual

jurisdictional shortcomings.

basis

to

establish

these

The Court declines to allow such

discovery.
The absence of factual allegations pertinent
to
the
existence
of
jurisdiction
is
dispositive
and,
in
such
absence,
the
existence of jurisdiction should not be
divined by looking to the stars.
. . . .
Post-removal discovery for the purpose of
establishing jurisdiction in diversity cases
cannot be squared with the delicate balance
struck by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a) and 11 and the policy and assumptions
that flow from and underlie them. Certainly,
the power to grant discovery generally is
conferred to the sound discretion of the
district
court,
and
post-removal
jurisdictional discovery may appear to present
a viable option for a court examining its
jurisdiction. Jurisdictional discovery could
avoid the problem of speculation by the court.
Sound policy and notions of judicial economy

- 2 -

and fairness, however, dictate that we not
follow this course.
Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215–16 (11th Cir.
2007).

Defendants removed the case without sufficient factual

information regarding plaintiff’s citizenship, or the amount in
controversy,
bootstrap

and

their

cannot

utilize

jurisdictional

federal
omissions.

court

processes

The

request

to
for

discovery will be denied, and the case remanded to state court for
a lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lee
County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this
Order to the Clerk of that Court.
2. The Clerk is further directed to terminate all pending
motions and deadlines, and to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of February, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 3 -

28th

day