Roquemore v. Drug Abuse Comprehensive Coordinating Office, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to remand this case back to state court, to terminate all pending motions, and to close this case. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 11/6/2013. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
BYRON D. ROQUEMORE,
Case No. 8:13-cv-2456-T-24 EAJ
DRUG ABUSE COMPREHENSIVE
COORDINATING OFFICE, INC.
d/b/a DACCO, and MARY LYNN ULREY,
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 18).
Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 22). As explained below, the Court concludes that the
case will be remanded.
Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Defendants, asserting three claims: (1) violation
of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), (2) violation of Florida’s Whistle-Blower Act
(“FWA”), and (3) defamation. (Doc. No. 2). In the damages section of his complaint, Plaintiff
states that he is entitled to punitive damages for Defendants’ intentional and reckless
indifference to his rights under the FCRA, FWA, “and by concurrent jurisdiction Plaintiff’s
federally protected rights under Title VII . . . as amended by . . . § 1981.” (Doc. No. 2, ¶ 7.2).
In response to the complaint, Defendants removed this case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1).
Defendants state in their Notice of Removal that they contacted Plaintiff regarding the reference
to Title VII and § 1981 in the complaint, and Defendants allege that Plaintiff confirmed that the
reference was not included by mistake. Therefore, Defendants removed this case based on
federal question jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which he deletes the reference to
Title VII and § 1981. Five days later, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand.
II. Motion to Remand
In his motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that there is no federal question present in this
case and that his previous “gratuitous” reference to federal statutes has now been deleted. The
Court will assume for the purpose of this motion that the reference to Title VII and § 1981 in the
original complaint was sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. However, upon review
of the amended complaint, any basis for federal question jurisdiction no longer exists, and the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Accordingly, the
Court will remand this case.
Plaintiff requests that this Court award him attorneys’ fees due to Defendants’ removal of
this case. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request, because the Court finds that Defendants did not
lack an objectively reasonable basis for removal, given that it was Plaintiff, himself, that
provided the basis by including a confusing reference to federal statutes in his complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED to the extent that this
case is remanded back to state court.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED to the extent that
Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees in connection with his motion to remand.
The Clerk is directed to remand this case back to state court, to terminate all
pending motions, and to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 6th day of November, 2013.
Counsel of Record
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?