E-Professional Technologies, LLC v. Primhealth of Illinois, Inc.
8:20-cv-00338
M.D. Fla.Apr 7, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff (E-Professional Technologies LLC) originally sued in federal court claiming diversity and a contractual federal-forum clause; case was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to properly allege LLC citizenship.
- Plaintiff refiled in Florida state court; Defendant (PrimeHealth of Illinois, Inc.) answered, moved to dismiss some counts, and served discovery seeking the citizenship of Plaintiff’s members.
- Plaintiff initially objected to the jurisdictional discovery; after a motion to compel, Plaintiff served responses on January 20, 2020, revealing all members were Florida citizens and thus diversity existed.
- Defendant removed to federal court on February 12, 2020 (amount in controversy undisputedly over $75,000).
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing Defendant waived removal by substantially litigating in state court and that remand is required to avoid prejudice from Plaintiff’s time and expense in state court.
- The court denied remand, finding Defendant did not know diversity existed until Plaintiff’s discovery responses and did not litigate in state court after learning the basis for removal; Plaintiff also failed to show prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver by litigating in state court | Defendant litigated extensively in state court and thereby waived removal | Defendant did not know diversity existed until Plaintiff’s discovery responses and thus could not waive removal earlier | No waiver — defendant lacked knowledge of a removable basis and did not continue state litigation after learning diversity |
| Prejudice from remand | Plaintiff incurred significant time and expense in state court and would be prejudiced if remanded | Plaintiff could have avoided the delay and would have incurred the same litigation costs in federal court; no unfair prejudice shown | No prejudice — plaintiff’s expenses were avoidable and would have been incurred in federal court absent earlier dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (federal removal when case could have been brought in federal court)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (resolve jurisdictional doubts in favor of remand)
- Yusefzadeh v. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 365 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (waiver by substantial participation in state-court litigation doctrine)
- Hill v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 72 F. Supp.2d 1353 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (waiver determination is fact-specific/case-by-case)
- TBI Caribbean Co. Ltd. v. Stafford-Smith, Inc., 239 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (distinguishes waiver of personal-jurisdiction defense by seeking affirmative relief from waiver of removal rights)