CRF BUILDING 600 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
v.
CHICO'S FAS, INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2020-10-14
No. 2:20-cv-652
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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

The court held that the case must be remanded because the defendant, a Florida citizen, removed the case to federal court, violating the forum-defendant rule.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued Defendant in state court for eviction and unpaid rent. Defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Pla…

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
28 U.S.C. § 1441(B)(2) Removal Of Civil Actions 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C) Eviction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1441(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

CHICO’S FAS, INC.,

Defendant. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is Plaintiff CRF Building 600 Limited Partnership’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 16). Before Defendant Chico’s Fas, Inc. responded, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not be remanded because of the forum-defendant rule. (Doc. 18). Both parties have done so, and do not oppose remand. (Doc. 21; Doc. 24). This is a lawsuit for eviction and money damages. Two months ago, CRF Building sued Chico’s in the state court seeking eviction and money damages for unpaid rent pursuant to commercial leases. Chico’s timely removed to this Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). But CRF Building moved to remand,

e.g., Goodwin v. Reynolds, 757 F. 3d 1216, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2014); Jasper Contractors, Inc. v. Progressive Prop. Ins., No. 2:19-cv-536-FtM-29NPM, 2019 WL 4126751, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2019). Here, Chico’s is a Florida citizen who was served before removal. Thus, the forum-defendant rule compels the Court to remand the matter. Because neither party addressed the matter, the Court issued an order to show cause on why the rule does not apply, allowing the parties a chance to weigh in. (Doc. 18). Both parties agree the forum-defendant rule applies, and the case should be remanded. (Doc. 21; Doc. 24). With the parties in agreement, the Court will remand the case.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that Court. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any deadlines,

deny any pending motions as moot, and close the file.

, ites WObLataathe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction because some members of CRF Building are domiciled in Florida. (Doc. 16). Neither party, however, saw the fatal flaw in Chico’s removal: Defendant is a Florida citizen.2 “A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of jurisdiction under Section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the…defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). This is called the “forum-defendant rule”; it bars an at-home defendant from removing the case if the defendant was served before removal. See,
2 Chico’s is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Florida. Finally, to the extent CRF Building seeks fees, the Motion is denied.3 When “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal,” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) allows a fee award. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). But the award must be “just” and the decision to award fees is within the Court’s discretion. Id. at 138-39; Diebel v. S.B. Trucking Co., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1333-34 (M.D. Fla. 2003). A remand based on the forumdefendant rule can support an award of fees. Jasper, 2019 WL 4126751, at *2. Yet the Court concludes it would be unjust to award fees when CRF Building failed to identify the correct defect in removal and makes no argument for entitlement to fees. The Court thus denies its request for fees. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 16) is GRANTED only as to remand.
3 The Local Rules require a request for fees to be made by separate motion after judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2); Local Rule 4.18(a). Thus, fees could be denied on this basis alone. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 14, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw