374 F. Supp. 3d 1284
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- Plaintiff Gonzalez filed a Florida state-law declaratory-judgment action challenging the Center for SafeSport/USAT-related eligibility decision; the Center and USA Taekwondo (USAT) removed to federal court and Gonzalez moved to remand.
- Defendants invoked three independent bases for federal jurisdiction: (1) the Sports Act removal provision (36 U.S.C. §220505(b)(9)); (2) federal-question jurisdiction via complete preemption by the Safe Sport Authorization Act (SSAA); and (3) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 (alleging amount in controversy exceeds $75,000).
- Section 220505(b)(9) by its text authorizes removal only for actions brought against the USOC (the “corporation”) and only at the request of that corporation; USOC is not a party here.
- The SSAA (2018) empowers the Center to investigate and resolve abuse allegations and authorizes discretionary arbitration mechanisms, but does not create a federal private cause of action or a federal judicial remedy to challenge Center eligibility determinations.
- Defendants offered speculative lost-revenue figures to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement; they provided no evidentiary support and sought jurisdictional discovery, which the court rejected as improper post-removal fishing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 36 U.S.C. §220505(b)(9) permits removal by Center or USAT | Gonzalez: statute only permits removal by the USOC when sued; does not authorize NGBs or the Center to remove | Defendants: statutory removal under the Sports Act supplies federal jurisdiction for this dispute | Held: Rejected defendants; statute applies only to actions against and removal by the USOC, not Center or NGBs, so it does not support removal |
| Whether the SSAA "completely" preempts Gonzalez's state-law claim (federal-question jurisdiction) | Gonzalez: SSAA does not create a federal cause of action or federal remedy, so complete preemption fails | Defendants: SSAA centrally governs eligibility disputes and therefore completely preempts state-law challenges to Center eligibility decisions | Held: Rejected defendants; complete preemption requires a federal remedy/cause of action, which SSAA does not provide, so it cannot supply removal jurisdiction |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (amount in controversy) | Gonzalez: complaint does not plead a specific damages amount; amount-in-controversy not met | Defendants: alleged lost revenues from a ten-year revocation make the controversy exceed $75,000 and requested jurisdictional discovery | Held: Rejected defendants; allegations speculative and unsupported, burden not met; request for post-removal jurisdictional discovery denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (complete preemption requires that a federal statute provide an exclusive federal remedy)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defenses cannot justify removal)
- Dial v. Healthspring of Ala., Inc., 541 F.3d 1044 (Medicare Act context: absence of a federal remedy forecloses removal based on complete preemption)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (removing defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance when plaintiff does not specify)
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (post-removal jurisdictional discovery to establish diversity amount is improper; defendant must plead facts supporting jurisdiction)