Narotsky v. United Health Care Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 31, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-22222
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-CV-22222-RAR

SHARI NAROTSKY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED HEALTH CARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendant. ___________________________________________/

ORDER REMANDING CASE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (“Motion”), [ECF No. 11], filed on July 15, 2023. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on July 31, 2023 (“Hearing”), [ECF No. 18]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, Defendant’s Response, [ECF No. 15], and Plaintiffs’ Reply, [ECF No. 17]. For the reasons stated on the record during the Hearing, and being otherwise fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion, [ECF No. 11], is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 1. The parties’ request for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Post-removal discovery for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction in diversity cases cannot be squared with the delicate balance struck by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 11 and the policy and assumptions that flow from and underlie them.”). 2. The above-styled action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida because it does not appear, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. See Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1208 (stating that the removing party must establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence). Defendant’s counsel conceded at the Hearing that this case does not meet the jurisdictional threshold when only considering Plaintiffs’ incurred fees as of the time of removal. Campbell v. Biomet 31, LLC, No. 21-80496, 2021 WL 1617724, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2021) (holding a court can only consider attorneys’ fees incurred at the time of removal); Lacombe v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-61016, 2020 WL 6079273, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2020) (same). 3. To the extent Plaintiffs’ Motion requests costs and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Motion is DENIED IN PART because Defendant did not lack an objectively reasonable basis for removing this case given the ambiguous nature of Plaintiffs’ initial interrogatory answer. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 995 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir. 2021). 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Clerk of Court for the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. 5. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 6. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2