Navtech US Surveyors USSA Inc. v. Boat/U.S., Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER. 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. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close the case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/31/2018. (LMF)

Case 2:18-cv-00416-SPC-MRM Document 22 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID 146

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NAVTECH US SURVEYORS USSA
INC., NAVTECH US CAPTAIN
SURVEYORS, INC. and NAVTECH
CAPTAIN US SURVEYORS LLC, a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:18-cv-416-FtM-38MRM

BOAT/U.S., INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendant’s Response to the
Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 19, “Response”) filed on July 19, 2018. On July 12,
2018, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded
for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on the presence of diversity
jurisdiction at the time of removal. (Doc. 17). In its Order to Show Cause, the Court noted
that the citizenship of the members of Navtech Captain US Surveyors LLC (“Navtech
LLC”) was not stated in the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1); see Rolling Greens MHP, L.P.
v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). In its Response,

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
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 websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. 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.

Case 2:18-cv-00416-SPC-MRM Document 22 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID 147

Defendant states that because Navtech LLC does not assert any claims against
Defendant in the Complaint (Doc. 2) and otherwise does not have a stake in the litigation,
it is not a real party in interest and should be disregarded for purposes of determining
diversity of the parties. Prior to filing the Notice of Removal, Defendant attempted to
determine the identities and citizenship of Navtech LLC’s members, but was unable to do
so. Defendant states that if the case is remanded, it will clarify Navtech LLC’s interest in
this case and/or seek discovery of information regarding the citizenship of Navtech LLC’s
members. (Doc. 19, p. 6).
A “real party plaintiff” is a “person [or entity] entitled under the substantive law to
enforce the right sued upon and who generally, but not necessarily, benefits from the
action’s final outcome.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004), quoted in United
States ex rel. Eisenstein v. N.Y. City, 556 U.S. 928, 934-35 (2009). Here, based on
Defendant’s admitted uncertainty and assumptions as to Navtech LLC’s stake in the
litigation, as well as the citizenship of its members, the Court finds that remand for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction is warranted.

The Court is not convinced that Navtech LLC

has no stake in the litigation such that it would be proper to disregard the entity for subjectmatter jurisdiction purposes. See Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851
F.3d 1218, 1225 (11th Cir. 2017) (A removing defendant bears the burden to prove
complete diversity at the time of removal.). Therefore, this matter will be remanded for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.2

Defendant requests that case be remanded “without prejudice” to its right to remove at a later
time after it has clarification regarding Navtech LLC’s citizenship. (Doc. 19, p. 6). This is
unnecessary because a case may be removed within thirty days after receipt of any “other paper”
obtained in state court from which it is first ascertained that the case becomes removable. 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Successive removals that allege a different factual basis for seeking removal
2

2

Case 2:18-cv-00416-SPC-MRM Document 22 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID 148

Accordingly, it is now
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 close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 31st day of July 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

and otherwise meet the requirements of Section 1446 are permissible. See Sibilia v. Makita
Corp., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

3