MATHIEUS
v.
NATIONAL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's Notice of Removal was deficient in pleading diversity jurisdiction and local rule compliance, requiring supplementation.
Defendant removed an insurance case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The Notice of Removal inadequately alleged the plaintiffs' citiz…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federalism Concerns cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
This is an insurance case that Defendant removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).2 A defendant may remove a civil case from state court provided it could have initially been brought in federal court.
751 (11th Cir. 2010); Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F. 3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003). And it is not enough to simply allege there is jurisdiction. Defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting jurisdiction. Burns v. Windsor Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1094 (11th
Cir. 1994). Removal jurisdiction also raises significant federalism concerns, and thus courts strictly construe removal statutes. See Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Any doubt as to the presence of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. See Russell Corp. v. Am.
Home Assurance Co., 264 F. 3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant does not adequately plead diversity of citizenship, alleging “upon information and belief” that Plaintiffs are citizens of Florida. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Citizenship cannot be supposed, “nor supplanted by considerations of convenience and efficiency.” See Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F. 3d 1255, 1261, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Jurisdiction cannot be established by a hypothetical.”). To remedy this deficiency, Defendant may supplement the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658. Finally, the Notice of Removal does not comply with Local Rule 1.08 governing typography (typeface must be Book Antiqua, Calisto MT, Century Schoolbook, Georgia, or Palatino; Times New Roman is permitted if the main text 1s at least 14-point, with other requirements). All future filings must comply with the Local Rules. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendant must supplement the Notice of Removal to show why the Court should not remand this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by September 28, 2022. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation this case be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida this September 14, 2022.
Lo, Lyte 6 Audet” “ Kefle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Sammie Bonner Constr. Co., Inc. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2003)