-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-22
The court held that Walgreens was fraudulently joined, denying the motion to remand and dismissing Walgreens. It also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend to add another non-diverse defendant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-19
The court held that removal was improper because the defendant was a citizen of the forum state, violating the forum defendant rule.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-12
The court held that the removal was improper due to multiple procedural defects, including untimeliness, lack of unanimity among defendants, and forum defendant rule, warranting remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-25
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was deficient in establishing diversity jurisdiction and in complying with procedural requirements for removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-18
The court held that the defendant insurers and agents failed to establish fraudulent joinder, as the plaintiff pleaded colorable, non-premature claims against the resident defendants, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-10
The court held that removal of a case to federal court before service of process on a forum defendant is permissible under the "snap removal" doctrine, and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute improper gamesmanship.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-28
The court held that a Florida citizen defendant cannot remove a case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and awarded attorney's fees for the improper removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-08
The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate fraudulent joinder of the Florida resident defendant, thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the case must be remanded.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-05
The court held that a defendant's objection to a magistrate judge's order remanding a case to state court must be overruled if the defendant fails to establish federal jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-23
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was improper due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction and a violation of the forum defendant rule.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-17
The court held that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are citizens of Florida, requiring remand to state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-18
The court held that the defendant's removal of the mortgage foreclosure action was improper due to lack of federal jurisdiction and violations of removal statutes.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-05
The court held that removal was improper because a defendant is a citizen of the forum state, divesting the court of diversity jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-14
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-09-24
The court held that a stateless defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction, and that the defendant was not a dispensable party, requiring remand.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-29
A case is not removable under diversity jurisdiction if any properly joined defendant is a citizen of the forum state, regardless of whether that defendant has been served at the time of removal.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-11
A forum selection clause requiring litigation in federal court, even if it appears to circumvent the resident defendant rule, is enforceable if the rule is considered a procedural hurdle that can be waived, and the parties have unambiguously agreed to litigate in federal court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-30
The court held that removal was improper under the forum-defendant rule, and the case must be remanded to state court. The court also indicated it would entertain a request for costs and fees.