Gonzalez Paez v. Spyros Marine, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 5 Motion for Attorney Fees. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-60152-GAYLES
JULIO GONZALEZ PAEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPYROS MARINE, LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and for Attorneys’
Fees and Costs [ECF No. 5]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise
fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff Julio Gonzalez Paez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against

Defendant Sypros Marine, LLC (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the “State Court”). Plaintiff asserts a claim for negligence as a result of injuries he sustained while working as a longshoreman on Defendant’s container ship. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify an amount of damages.
On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated to Defendant’s counsel, in an email,
that Plaintiff’s settlement demand, “given the clear-cut liability, severe injuries and economic
losses, as well as the longshore lien, would obviously be a considerable seven figure number.”
[ECF No. 5-1]. The following day, Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendant’s counsel that the initial longshore lien was $70,632.14, based on “$32,234.66 in indemnity and $38,397.48 in medi-

1

cal.” Id. On December 23, Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for
Admissions, wherein Plaintiff admitted, without explanation, that he is seeking damages in excess of $75,000. [ECF No. 1-4]. Defendant removed the action to this Court on January 20, 2017
asserting the Court has diversity jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1]
III.

DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000 and that

the parties are diverse. It is also undisputed that the amount in controversy cannot be ascertained by looking at the face of the Complaint. The only issue currently before the Court is
whether the October email exchange or the December discovery responses triggered the thirtyday removal period.
When removal is not evident based on the initial pleadings, a defendant may remove an
action “within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of
an amended pleading, motion, order or 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). In its notice of removal, Defendant asserts that it could first ascertain that the case was removable on December 23,
2016, when it received Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Plaintiff argues that Defendant was on
notice that this action was removable by October 26, 2016, based on the attorney’s email exchange. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. “Letters, as well as emails, from counsel constitute
‘other papers.’” Mitchell v. Cody Express, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-165-SRW, 2016 WL 6246793
at *2 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2016); Watkins v. Polk County School Readiness Coalition, Inc., Case
No. 8:13-cv-3020-T-24EAJ, 2014 WL 272972 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2014) (email constitutes
other paper). The Court finds that the October 25 and 26, 2016 emails, read together, clearly es-

2

tablish that Plaintiff was seeking over $75,000 in damages. 1 Accordingly, Defendant’s notice of
removal, filed on January 20, 2016, was not timely. Based thereon, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED in part. This action is REMANDED to the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Court finds that Defendant
had a reasonable basis to seek removal and, therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s
fees and costs.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of January, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s offer to settle his claim for a seven figure number was too vague to constitute a reliable indicator of damages. While a settlement demand must be more than just puffing and posturing, the
Court does not base its ruling on the proposed settlement offer alone. Indeed, the Court finds that Defendant could
have ascertained that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 as early as October based on two emails, sent one
day apart, which referenced a demand of at least a seven figure number and valued Plaintiff’s lien – which continues
to grow -- at over $70,000. Notably, Plaintiff’s October emails provide a greater basis to value his claim than the
non-specific admission in response to Defendant’s request for admissions.

3