SMITH
v.
WAL-MART INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2021-03-01
No. 3:21-cv-189
917 F. Supp. 2d 1221 District Court, M.D. Florida (2021) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Holding

A civil action arising under state worker's compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court and must be remanded.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court including claims under federal law, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and Florida's Worker's Compensation statu…

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.

Topics
Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(A)) 28 U.S.C. § 1367(A) Supplemental Jurisdiction Florida Civil Rights Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(A)) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On February 26, 2021, Defendant filed Defendant’s Notice of Removal – Federal Question (Doc. 1) seeking to remove this case from the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Baker County, Florida. See Notice at 1. Defendant asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff has raised violations of federal law in her underlying Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 3). See Notice at 2-3; see also Complaint, Cts. IV-VII. Defendant also maintains that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Plaintiff’s related state law claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq. See Notice at 3; see also Complaint, Cts. II-III. The Court is satisfied it may properly exercise jurisdiction over these claims. However, upon review, the Court notes that Plaintiff also brings a claim pursuant to Florida’s Worker’s Compensation statute, Fla. Stat. § 440.025. See

Complaint, Ct. I. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), “[a] civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has held that such claims must

be remanded to state court as the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them. See Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F. 3d 1055, 1061 (11th Cir. 2000); Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc., 388 F. App’x 902, 905-06 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Shaw v. Ring Power Corp., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1222-24 (N.D. Fla. 2013).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), where an action is removed that includes “a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute,” the district court “shall sever” the nonremovable claim and remand the claim to the state court from which it was removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)(B) and (2). Thus, it appears

Count I of the Complaint must be severed from the remainder of the Complaint and remanded to state court.1 In light of the foregoing, the parties are directed to SHOW CAUSE by a written response filed on or before March 15, 2021, why the Court should not

Meal Le United States District Judge

le11 Copies: Counsel of record

Footnotes
1 The Court notes that if the parties would prefer to litigate all of Plaintiff’s claims in one forum, they may either agree to the remand of the entirety of this action, or agree that Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this action and directly file the matter anew in federal court. See Shaw, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 1224. sever and remand to state court Count I of the Complaint which sets forth Plaintiff's worker’s compensation retaliation claim under section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 1st day of March, 2021.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smith v. Wal-Mart Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
    …court as the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them. See Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F. 3d 1055, 1061 (11th Cir. 2000); Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc., 388 F. App’x 902, 905-06 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Shaw v. Ring Power Corp., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1222-24 (N.D. Fla. 2013). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), where an action is removed that includes “a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute,” the district court “shall sever” the nonremovable claim and remand the claim to the state cou…
  • Moore v. KIK Int'l, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2020)
    …azier-White v. Gee, No. 8:13-CV-1854-T-36TBM, 2015 WL 1648551, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2015) (severing and remanding retaliation claim under Florida workers’ compensation statute), aff’d, 818 F. 3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2016); Shaw v. Ring Power Corp., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1224 (N.D. Fla. 2013) (“Congress now has said that, going forward, a district court ‘shall’ remand a claim made nonremovable by statute.”). Count III of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is a claim for retaliation pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 440.205, Fl…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw