PEEPLES

v.

OMEGA FLEX INC.

Court’s diversity jurisdiction, and alleged that it was a citizen of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs were citizens of Florida, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. See Notice ¶¶ 4–8, 11. Accordingly, at the time of removal, it appeared that the Court had diversity jurisdiction over this action.

On October 27, 2021, Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint adding Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing, Inc., as a defendant. See Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 59; Motion) at 2. Plaintiffs represented that, after conferral, Omega Flex did not object to

Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint that added Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing as a defendant. See id. As such, consistent with the parties’ agreement, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs’ Motion. See Order of October 28, 2021 (Doc. 61).

Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on October 28, 2021. See Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 62; Amended Complaint). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs name Omega Flex and Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing as Defendants. See id. ¶¶ 3–4. Notably, Plaintiffs allege that

Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing is incorporated in the state of Florida and has its principal place of business in Florida. See id. ¶ 4. As such, Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing is a citizen of the state of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412. Because Plaintiffs are citizens of Florida, with the addition of Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing, also a citizen of Florida, complete diversity no longer exists in this case.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” In addition, § 1447(e) provides that: “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.”¹ Interpreting this provision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically instructed that when

§ 1447(e) is applicable, “the district court [is] left with only two options: (1) deny joinder; or (2) permit joinder and remand [Plaintiffs’] case to state court.” Ingram, 146 F. 3d at 862. For this reason, the Court in Ingram held that because “[t]he district court chose to permit the diversity-destroying joinder, . . . it should have remanded [the] action to [the state] circuit court.” Id. Here, for the same reason, given the parties’ agreement to permit the joinder of Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing, and the Court’s grant of permission for Plaintiffs to file the Amended Complaint with Farrell’s Mechanical & Plumbing as a defendant, the Court no longer has diversity jurisdiction. Because the Court identifies no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded to the state court. See id. (After permitting plaintiff to add a nondiverse defendant after removal, “[t]he district court had no discretion to add the [nondiverse defendant], retain jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits.”).

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

1c30 Copies to: Counsel of Record Clerk, Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida