Bentley v. Miami Air Int'l, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 3d 1337

Plaintiff George Bentley, a former pilot employed in Miami, filed a one-count complaint in Florida state court alleging retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Defendant Miami Air removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in a Notice of Removal and a Removal Status Report.
Defendant initially asserted federal-law claims and later shifted to arguing the state-law FCRA claim necessarily raised substantial questions of federal law (ADEA-related issues); it also initially claimed diversity jurisdiction despite being a Florida citizen (forum defendant rule).
Plaintiff moved to remand and sought attorney's fees, arguing removal was improper and objectively unreasonable.
The district court evaluated jurisdiction based on the pleadings at the time of removal and concluded federal jurisdiction was lacking.
The court granted remand to state court and awarded plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal	Bentley: removal improper; defendant is a Florida citizen, so forum-defendant rule bars removal	Miami Air: claimed plaintiff was a Maine resident and amount-in-controversy satisfied	Held: Removal on diversity basis improper under 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2); defendant is a Florida citizen
Whether federal law creates the cause of action	Bentley: complaint pleads only a state-law FCRA claim	Miami Air: initially suggested federal-law claims existed (later abandoned)	Held: No federal cause of action; plaintiff pleaded only FCRA state claim
Whether the FCRA claim "necessarily raises" a substantial federal question (Grable/Gunn test)	Bentley: mere EEOC charge or prior ADEA suit does not make state claim federal	Miami Air: FCRA claim implicates ADEA/EEOC procedural and substantive issues that are disputed and substantial	Held: Not "necessarily raised"; FCRA claim does not require resolution of federal ADEA issues
Whether removal was objectively reasonable and whether fees should be awarded	Bentley: removal was objectively unreasonable; requests fees	Miami Air: removal was reasonable if diversity or federal-question existed	Held: Removal objectively unreasonable; attorney's fees and costs awarded under §1447(c)

Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (burden on removing party to show federal jurisdiction)
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (resolve jurisdictional uncertainties in favor of remand)
Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2003) (strict construction of removal jurisdiction)
Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (federalism concerns in removal jurisdiction)
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction tested at time of removal)
Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (federal-question jurisdiction for state-law claims)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (four-part test for substantial federal question jurisdiction)
MDS (Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc., 720 F.3d 833 (11th Cir. 2013) (factors for substantialness inquiry)
Hill v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff may plead state claims to avoid federal jurisdiction)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (standard for awarding fees on remand)
Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2001) (forum-defendant rule bars removal)
Bauknight v. Monroe Cty., 446 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussing fee-award deterrence and reasonableness standard)