Thatcher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER granting 5 8 Motions to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff shall file a motion for her reasonable attorney's fees and costs by October 21, 2019. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 5 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand and Memorandum of Law filed by Phyllis Thatcher, 8 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Phyllis Thatcher. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 10/9/2019. See attached document for full details. (RS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-80794-CIV-SMITH
PHYLLIS THATCHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF REMAND
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions for Remand [DE 5 & 8].
Plaintiff’s motions also seek an award of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs as a result of
Defendant’s improper removal. Defendant has not filed a response to either motion. A review of
the Notice of Removal indicates that remand is appropriate and Plaintiff is entitled to her
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with the removal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), “the notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be
filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of the initial pleading setting
forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” Removal statutes should
be narrowly construed. Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996). According to the
Notice of Removal, Defendant received notice of the suit “through summons on or about April 29,
2019.” Defendant filed its Notice of Removal on June 16, 2019. The Notice of Removal states
that Plaintiff granted Defendant an additional 20 days to respond to the complaint, making the
removal timely. There is nothing in the statute, however, that allows a party to grant an extension
1

of the statutory time frame for removal and Defendant has cited no authority in support of this
proposition. Thus, Defendant’s removal was untimely.
Plaintiff, pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), seeks its attorney’s fees and costs incurred because
of Defendant’s improper removal. “[C]ourts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only
where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v.
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Here, Defendant’s removal was untimely and
Defendant had no valid basis to believe otherwise. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to her
reasonable fees and costs associated with her motions to remand.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Remand [DE 5 & 8] are GRANTED:
a) This matter is REMANDED to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm
Beach County, Florida.
b) Plaintiff shall file a motion for her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs by
October 21, 2019.
c) This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 9th day of October, 2019.

cc:

All counsel of record

2