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)

Download PDF
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

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?