United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. HOFFMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
following motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR REMAND TO
STATE COURT (Doc. No. 33)
FILED: September 13, 2019
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be GRANTED.
9, 2019, Plaintiffs Thomas Goodwin and Lydia Goodwin,
appearing pro se, filed a complaint against the
above-named Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Ninth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida. Doc. No.
1-3. Plaintiffs' claims appear to stem from the alleged
wrongful termination of Mr. Goodwin from his employment with
AdventHealth. Id. In the complaint, Plaintiffs
allege claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, harassment, defamation,
discrimination, and breach of fiduciary duty. Id.
Embedded within the claim for harassment, Plaintiffs state in
one sentence that Defendants “knew or should have known
that harassment is a form of discrimination that violates
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the
Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).” Id. at 12.
Nowhere else in the complaint do Plaintiffs reference federal
August 30, 2019, Defendant Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt,
with the consent of the remaining Defendants, removed the
matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1441, 1446, asserting that the Court has federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law
claims. Doc. No. 1; see Doc. No. 1-2.
September 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
matter to state court. Doc. No. 33. In the motion, Plaintiffs
argue that they do not assert any federal claims in the
complaint. Id. at 4, 9. Several of the Defendants
oppose the motion. Doc. Nos. 45, 47.
September 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Doc. No. 38. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege
claims for wrongful discharge; intentional infliction of
emotional distress; harassment; defamation; discrimination;
and breach of fiduciary duty. Id. No federal
statutes are cited in the amended complaint.
Id. Defendant John David Hefner has filed an
answer to the amended complaint, and the remaining Defendants
have filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending before
the Court. Doc. Nos. 48, 50.
motion to remand was referred to the undersigned for issuance
of a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is ripe for
jurisdiction exists only where the district court would have
original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a); Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200
F.3d 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2000). A party seeking to invoke a
federal court's jurisdiction over a case must first show
that the underlying claim is based upon either diversity
jurisdiction or the existence of a federal question.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. In
considering whether it possesses federal question
jurisdiction over a removed case, a district court is guided
by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which