Financial Information Technologies, Inc. v. Lopez
Filing
15
ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 1/4/2016. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO: 8:15-cv-2784-T-30AEP
MARK LOPEZ,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 8)
and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 13). The Court, having reviewed the motion,
response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be
denied.
DISCUSSION
On or about September 30, 2015, Plaintiff Financial Information Technologies, Inc.
filed this action in state court against Defendant Mark Lopez, a former employee, seeking
declaratory and monetary relief related to breach of contract, misappropriation of trade
secrets, tortious interference, and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff served its response to requests for admissions that
indicated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. On December 3, 2015, Defendant
removed the action based on diversity of citizenship. On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed
a motion to remand arguing that the removal was defective because it alleged that Defendant
was a resident of Maryland—in other words, the removal did not properly allege that
Defendant was a citizen of Maryland. The motion also questioned whether Defendant was
truly a Maryland citizen.
On December 15, 2015, Defendant filed an amended notice of removal. The amended
notice alleges that Lopez is a citizen of Maryland. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion
to remand also includes Defendant’s affidavit that also demonstrates he is a citizen of
Maryland.
The Eleventh Circuit dictates a liberal approach with respect to permitting a defendant
to correct deficiencies of citizenship in a notice of removal. See Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc.
v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that if a plaintiff
moves to remand because of a defendant’s failure to adequately allege diversity of citizenship
in the notice of removal, the “district court should allow [the defendant] to cure the
omission”) (internal quotations omitted) (alterations supplied). Defendant’s amended notice
of removal and response indicate that diversity jurisdiction is present in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
(Dkt. 8) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 4, 2016.
Copies Furnished To:
Counsel/Parties of Record
-2-
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?