Speights v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/21/2015. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-62623-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
ALFRED SPEIGHTS, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
BEFORE ME is Plaintiff Alfred Speights, III’s Motion to Remand this action to the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (ECF
No. 5). Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. removed this case from state court on
November 18, 2014. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is fully
briefed and ripe for adjudication.

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, the

Response (ECF No. 6) and Reply (ECF No. 7) thereto, the record, and relevant legal
authorities, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2014, Plaintiff Alfred Speights, III, (“Mr. Speights”) filed suit in state
court against Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (“JCP”) for negligence stemming
from an accident that occurred on July 5, 2013 at a J.C. Penney store located in Pompano
Beach, Florida (“State Court Case”).1 See generally Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Mr. Speights
is a citizen of Florida and a resident of Broward County, Florida. Id. JCP is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Id. Subsequently, on April
24, 2014, JCP removed Mr. Speights’ action to federal court on the basis of diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“First Removal”).2 However, although complete
diversity existed between the parties, JCP failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the
1

2

Alfred Speights, III vs. J. C. Penney Corporation, Case No. 2014 CACE 005975 (04).

The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Alfred
Speights, III vs. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 14-60971-Rosenbaum/Hunt.

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.

See Order Remand, ECF No. 1-4.

Accordingly, the action was remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. Id.
The parties then proceeded with discovery in the State Court Case. On June 30,
2014, Mr. Speights served JCP with Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories, in which he
revealed that his medical bills exceeded $75,000. See Answer Interrogs., ECF No. 1-5. As a
result of this newly discovered information, JCP filed its second notice of removal on
November 18, 2014 (“Second Removal”). Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. JCP argues that
removal is proper at this juncture because the amount in controversy now exceeds $75,000.
Id. In response, Mr. Speights filed the instant Motion to Remand, arguing that JCP has
failed to meet the statutory requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party may remove a civil action from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §
1441 based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) if the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. A party removing a case to federal court
bears the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d
876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The removing defendant must overcome the
narrow construction of removal statutes. See Pacheco de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368,
1373 (11th Cir. 1998). “The strict construction of removal statutes…prevents ‘exposing the
plaintiff to the possibility that he will win a final judgment in federal court, only to have it
determined that the court lacked jurisdiction on removal’…a result that is costly not just for
the plaintiff, but for all the parties and for society when the case must be relitigated.” Crowe
v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Cowart Iron Works, Inc. v. Phillips
Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 740, 777 (S.D. Ga. 1981) (quoting 14A C. Wright Miller & E.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3721)). Thus, “all doubts about jurisdiction
should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999); Doe v. Fla. Int’l Univ. Bd. Of Trustees, 464 F. Supp. 2d
1259, 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
III. ANALYSIS
A defendant must file for removal of a civil action based on diversity of citizenship
grounds “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant” of “a copy of the initial pleading
setting forth the claim for relief,” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), or “if the case stated by the initial
2

pleading is not removable,” the defendant may remove the case within 30 days of receipt of
“other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become
removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis added). Plaintiff served Defendant JCP with
his Answers to Interrogatories in the Circuit Court Case on June 30, 2014, wherein he
claimed that his medical bills exceeded $127,887.54. Therefore, JCP first ascertained that
Plaintiff’s damages exceeded the statutory amount in controversy threshold of $75,000 on or
about June 30, 2014. However, JCP did not move to remove the case from state court until
November 18, 2014, nearly five months after learning that Plaintiff’s damages met the
minimum amount in controversy requirement for removal.
Therefore, although the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
is now met, JCP has failed to timely file its second Notice of Removal. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 5) is
GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this
case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of May 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record

3