Intermedix Corporaton v. Urgent Care of Mountain View PLLC
0:19-cv-62399
S.D. Fla.Oct 4, 2019Background:
- Intermedix Corporation sued Urgent Care of Mountain View in state court; Defendant removed the case to federal court on September 26, 2019, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendant's original notice of removal did not identify the citizenship of its members, so the Court ordered an amended notice setting forth members' citizenship by September 30, 2019, warning that failure to comply would result in remand.
- Defendant did not timely file the amended notice; the Court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on October 1, 2019.
- On October 2, 2019, Defendant filed an amended notice showing complete diversity and explained it had not received the Court's order until October 1 due to mail delay, asking the Court to retain the case.
- The Court held it lacked authority to revisit its remand order because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars district-court reconsideration of remand orders and denied Defendant’s motion to reopen as moot; the case remained closed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may revisit or reopen a remand order after remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) | Remand is final and not reviewable; court should not reopen | Court should retain jurisdiction because amended notice shows complete diversity and failure to comply was excusable | Court cannot revisit remand; § 1447(d) bars district-court reconsideration, remand stands |
| Whether the removal initially failed to establish complete diversity | Remand appropriate because notice lacked members' citizenship | Amended notice cured defect and demonstrated complete diversity | Even if removal defect cured, remand remains unreviewable under § 1447(d) |
| Whether lack of receipt of the Court’s order excuses noncompliance with the deadline to amend notice | Counsel is responsible to monitor docket and CM/ECF; failure not excused | Mail delay prevented timely compliance; excusable neglect warrants reopening | Court emphasized counsel’s CM/ECF responsibilities but stressed it is divested of jurisdiction to reopen; relief denied as moot |
| Whether remand under § 1447(c) divests the district court of further authority over the case | Remand must be effectuated when jurisdiction is lacking | District court retains power to correct an erroneous remand | § 1447(c) requires remand for lack of jurisdiction, and § 1447(d) prevents district-court reconsideration regardless of error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., 657 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2011) (§ 1447(d) bars district-court reconsideration of its own remand order)
- Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 951 F.2d 325 (11th Cir. 1992) (same principle regarding § 1447(d))
- Wachovia Mortg. FSB v. Marquez, [citation="520 F. App'x 783"] (11th Cir. 2013) (remand-order review limitation applies even if remand was erroneous)
- Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) (remand to state court divests the district court of jurisdiction to take further action)