Maxwell v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00628
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

LAWRENCE MAXWELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-628-JLB-KCD

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant. / ORDER Lawrence Maxwell alleges that he leased a defective Aston Martin and filed a single count complaint in state court against Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.—the car’s manufacturer—under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of express warranty, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.1 Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. But because Defendant has failed to establish diversity of citizenship, it must supplement the notice of removal. A plaintiff may initiate a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in either state or federal court. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); see also Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). Maxwell

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. chose to file his claim in state court. Even so, a defendant may remove a Magnuson-Moss claim based on diversity jurisdiction, as occurred here. See

Allen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 155 F. App’x 480 (11th Cir. 2005). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco

Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).

The defendant seeking removal must establish diversity jurisdiction as of the date of the removal. See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010); Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003). And it is not enough to simply allege

there is jurisdiction. Defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting jurisdiction. Burns v. Windsor Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1094 (11th Cir. 1994). Removal jurisdiction also raises significant federalism concerns, and thus courts strictly construe removal statutes. See id. at 1095. Any doubt

as to the presence of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. See Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant has not adequately pled diversity of citizenship, alleging “upon information and belief’ that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Citizenship cannot be supposed, “nor supplanted by considerations of convenience and efficiency.” See Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1273 (“Jurisdiction cannot be established by a hypothetical.”). To remedy this deficiency, Defendant may supplement the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Finally, the Notice of Removal does not comply with Local Rule 1.08 governing typography (typeface must be Book Antiqua, Calisto MT, Century Schoolbook, Georgia, or Palatino; Times New Roman is permitted if the main text 1s at least 14-point, with other requirements). All future filings must comply with the Local Rules. Accordingly, itis ORDERED: Defendant must supplement the Notice of Removal to show why the Court should not remand this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by October 19, 2022. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation this

case be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 6, 2022.

Lyte L.A asl * Kale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge