Annexy et al v. City of Tarpon Springs

Filing 3

ORDER: This action is remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to state court. After remand has been effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/22/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARIA ANNEXY aka MARY ANNEXY and
ANNEXY GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.

8:18-cv-418-T-33JSS

CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant Defendant the
City of Tarpon Springs’ Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1), which
was filed on February 20, 2018. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and accordingly remands the action to state court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
I.

Background Discussion
Plaintiffs Maria Annexy and the Annexy Group, LLC allege

that they made a written request to inspect the City of Tarpon
Springs' records on January 24, 2018. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 4).
According to Plaintiffs, their attorney was denied access to
the records. (Id. at ¶ 6). Days later, "a letter came and a
request from the City attorney asking for a very large sum of
money to have access to those public records." (Id. at ¶ 7).
Specifically, Plaintiffs indicate that the City advised it

would cost "between $86,000 and $230,000 (approximately), just
to review the records requested." (Id. at ¶ 8).
Plaintiffs maintain that the City is violating Chapter
119 of the Sunshine law and notes that the City has brought
three

separate

violations.

actions

against

Plaintiffs

for

zoning

Plaintiffs suggest that they need access to the

requested records to defend in the zoning lawsuits. The
Plaintiffs postulate "the request for monetary payment of such
an exorbitant sum of money may shock the conscience of this
court as if it was a type of lawful records review blackmail."
(Id. at ¶ 15).
In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek
"damages and a Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Florida Statute
§ 119.01 et seq., for violations of the Government in the
Sunshine laws." (Id. at ¶ 1).

In Count II, Plaintiffs seek

declaratory relief pursuant to Florida Statute § 86.01 -specifically a declaration that "the actions of the Defendant
are unlawful and violate plaintiffs' fundamental due process
rights." (Id. at ¶ 25).

Florida Statute § 162.07(3) concerns

hearings of enforcement boards and states, inter alia that
"Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due
process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings."

-2-

On February 20, 2018, the City removed the case on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction claiming: "The Amended
Complaint

requests

a

declaration

of

a

violation

of

constitutional due process rights and a writ of mandamus for
alleged violation of the Florida Public Records Act." (Doc. #
1 at 1).
II.

Legal Standard
At this juncture, the Court sua sponte addresses the

issue of jurisdiction.

“[I]t is well settled that a federal

court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v.
Am.

Tobacco

Co.,

168

F.3d

405,

410

(11th

Cir.

1999).

Furthermore, in the context of cases removed to federal court,
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states, “If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
The Amended Complaint consists entirely of state law
causes

of

action

asserted

under

Florida

law

by

Florida

resident Plaintiffs against the City of Tarpons Springs,
Florida. Despite the City's characterization of these claims,
the Court determines that they are not federal claims and
there is no reference to federal law in the Amended Complaint.
The reference to "due process" is to Florida Statute §

-3-

162.07(3).
jurisdiction

Neither
nor

the

the

requirements

jurisdiction are satisfied.
case to state court.

requirements
of

for
federal

diversity
question

The Court sua sponte remands the

see Baggett v. First Nat'l Bank of

Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)(explaining
that purely state law claims are best resolved by the state
court).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
This action is remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for
lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is
directed to remand this case to state court. After remand has
been effected, the Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
22nd day of February, 2018.

-4-