United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
D. WHITTEMORE, United States District Judge.
THE COURT is Plaintiffs (Second) Motion to Remand
Matter (Dkt. 14), which Defendant opposes (Dkt. 16). Upon
consideration, the Motion (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED.
Burrows filed this Florida Civil Rights Act employment
discrimination action in Polk County Circuit Court. (Dkt. 2).
State Farm first removed the case on January 26, 2017 based
on diversity jurisdiction. The case was remanded to Polk County
Circuit Court on August 3, 2017. On August 14, State Farm
removed the case again based on diversity jurisdiction,
contending that new facts supported removal. (Dkt. 1).
Plaintiff moves to remand, contending that State Farm
essentially seeks reconsideration of the order remanding the
prior case, and alternatively, that State Farm fails to prove
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
diversity cases, federal courts have original jurisdiction
over cases in which the parties are completely diverse and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of
costs and interest. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). And where, as
here, the case is not removable by the initial pleading, the
removal is governed by § 1446(b)(3) (formerly a second
paragraph removal), which provides:
Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case stated by
the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal
may be filed within thirty 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
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
[And], [i]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not
removable solely because the amount in controversy does not
exceed the amount specified in section 1332(a), information
relating to the amount in controversy in the record of the
State proceeding, or in responses to discovery, shall be
treated as an "other paper" under subsection
25 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3)(A).
defendant must receive, not generate or compile, the
"other paper" containing "an unambiguous
statement that clearly establishes federal
jurisdiction." Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II,
Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 762 (11th Cir. 2010);
Loweryv. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215 (11th
Cir. 2007) (as applied to second paragraph or §
1446(b)(3) removals); Bosky v. Kroger Texas, LP, 288
F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that "the
information supporting removal must be 'unequivocally
clear and certain' to start the time limit" for a
notice of removal). And, "a party is not entitled, under
existing laws, to file a second petition for removal upon the
same grounds, where, upon the first removal by the same
party, the federal court declined to proceed and remanded the
suit " St. Paul & C. Railway Co. v. McLean,
108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883); see Watson v. Carnival
Corp., 436 Fed.Appx. 954, 955 (11th Cir. 2011).
"The prohibition against removal 'on the same
ground' does not concern the theory on which federal
jurisdiction exists (i.e., federal question or diversity
jurisdiction), but rather the pleading or event that made the
case removable." S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax,
Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 492 (5th Cir. 1996); see
Watson, 436 Fed.Appx. at 956.
threshold matter, Plaintiff contends that State Farm's
removal is based on the same grounds as its first removal.
Although the theory State Farm relies on, diversity
jurisdiction, is the same, the events it relies on are new.
Notwithstanding, those events do not support removal.
Farm relies on three measures of damages to reach the
jurisdictional threshold: lost wages, compensatory damages,
and attorney's fees. And, it relies on Plaintiff s
deposition testimony, the docket in the prior federal case,
and an affidavit from ...