Lefebvre D'Ovidio v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD., No. 1:2022cv21629 - Document 34 (S.D. Fla. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER granting 14 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 11/8/2022. See attached document for full details. (mmd)

Download PDF
Lefebvre D'Ovidio v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD. Doc. 34 Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 1 of 9 UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERX DISTRICT OF'FLORIDA ' M iam iD ivision' CaseNum ber:22Q 1429-ClV-M ORENO FR AN CESCO LEFEB VRE D 'OV IDIO, Plaintiff, RO YA L CA RIBBEA N CRU ISES,LTD ., D efendant. ORDER GM NTING PEAINTIFF'S M OTION FOR REM AND RoyalCaribbean Cruises,Ltd.isan in-state defendantw ho rem oved thiscasepriorto being served,citingtheCourt'sdiversityjurisdiction.Ordinarily,theforum defendantruleprecludesihstate forum defendants,like RoyalCaribbean,ftom rem oving cases on the basis of diversity jtlrisdiction.ButRoyalCaribbean contgndsremovalisproperbecauseithadnotyetbeen served assetfol'thin28U.S.C.j1441(b)(2).TheVourtdoesnotagreethatj1441(b)(2)allowsthisCssnap l'em OVal.''Thetim ing ofserviceofp 'rocessisinconsequentialin acasewheretheonly defendant is an in-state defendant,who had advance notice of the lawsuitand where the Plaintiffhad no opportunitytoserveprocessbeforetheremoval.Totheextentj 1441(b)(2)createsan exception to the forum defendantrule,itdoesnotapply in thiscase.Rem dnd isproper. THIS CAUSE camebefor:theCoul' tupcm PlaintiffsM etion forRemand(D.E.14). THE COURT hasconsidelc edthemôtiori,theresponse,thepertinentportionsöftherecord, and being otherw ise fully advised in theprem iseà,itis AbJUDGED thatthem otion isGRANTED and tl zigcageisREM ANDED tö theCircuit CourtfortheElevènth JudicialCirzuitin and forM iami-DadeCounty,êlorida.Th' eClerk ofthe Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 2 of 9 Cou14ishereby directed to take a11necessal'y stepsand proceduresto effectthe expeditious rem and ofthe aboveustyled action.Itis also ADJUDGED thatallotherpendingm otionsareDENIED asm oot. 1. Bttckzround Thiscasearisesfrom afamilydisputebetweentwobrothersinItaly.Plaintiff Francesco LefebvreD 'Ovidio,claimsheistherightfulownerOfcapitalstock in Silversea CruiseHolding, Ltd.,which heclaim shisbrotherM anfrediLefebvre unlawfully sold to DefendantRoyal Caribbean Cruises,Ltd.On M ay 23,2022,Plaintifffiled his com plaintarising outofFlorida law instatecourtagainstRoyalCaribbean,whichisaFloridacitizen.Thenextèay on May 24,2022, Plaintifffiled an unsigned sum m ons in state courtrequesting itissue a signed copy so that Plaintiffcould initiate service.Florida'sfiling system does notperm ita filerto file a sum m ons untilacasenum berhasbeen issued,whicltdid notoccuruntilM ay 24,2022.On M ay 26,2022, before the state courtclerk signed thè sum m ons,D efendantrem oved the case citing the Court's diversityjulisdiction.Thestatecoul'tsignedthesummonssixdayslateronJune1,2022. Theparties'conductpriortothefilingoftilecomplaintisrelevanttotheresolutionofthe motionforremand Both sideshavesubm itled declarations'oftheirrepresentatives?qrtheCoul't. . M arcV.Ayala,apartneratthe laW firm BoiesScltillerFlexher,LLP,described theparties'presuitexchanges oflbehalfofthe PlaintifffM r.A yala provided the Courtw ith the actualem ail exchangesbetweentheparties.RoyalCéribbean'sAssociateVicePresidentandAssistant GeneralCounselErnesto M .Rubidescribed the eventsfrom the D efendr t'sperspective.The follow ing facts are draw n from both declarations.l lTheEleventh Circuithasadoptedatlexibleapproach allow ing districtcoul' tsto considerpost-removalevidencein assessingremovaljurisdiction.Sierlninskiv.TransmouthFin.Col' p.,216F.3d945,949(11thCir.2000). Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 3 of 9 Pre-suitdiscussionsbegan pn Janualy 24,2022,when Plaintiffsentaletterto . Defendant'scounselexplainingthebasisfortheclàim sand inquiring ifDefendanttthasan interestin discussing a potentialresolution.''On February 3,2022,thepartiesdiscussed Plaintiff's claim s by phone and Plaintiffsuggested m ediation.Plaintiffagain reached outto Defendantandthepattieshad asecond callon M arch 2,2022.On M arch 11,2022,Plaintiff reached outagain to try to tesolve hisclaim s. The partieshad calls on M arch 17 and 18,2022,and Plaintiffinform ed D efendantthathe w astm dertim epressure to file the com plaintdue to the statute oflim itations.On M arch 18, 2022,Defendantrequested adraf'tcomplaintto decidewhethertom ediate.Plaintiffprovided a draflcomplainton M arch 22,2022,on thecondition thatDefendantprovide72 hoursnoticeifit wasgoingtofileitsown complaint.Defendantnotesthatthisdraftcomplaintisstamped(ssubject to change.''The parties spoke again on A pril12,2022 and Plaintiffagain advised ofthe pending . statute oflim itations.O n April14,2022,Plaintifffollow ed up via em ailnoting thathe rem ained interested in m ediating,butifD efendantw asnot,he w ould file his com plaintCtthiscom ing week.''AyalaDecl.at! 18,Ex.D at15. O n April19,2022,D efendantresponded thatitwsw illing to m ediate and Plaintiff draf4ed a tolling agreem entto facilitate m ediation.On A pril25,2022,Plaintiffprovided a Cistrike and rank list''ofneutralm ediators,andthetolling agreem ent.Defendantdidnotrespond and did notprovideitsown listofneutralm ediators.On M ay 6,2022,Plaintifffollowed up statingthatif Defendantwasnotprepared to enterthetolling agreem ent,hçwouldneedto proceed accordingly.N othaving reached agreem ent,Plaintifftold D efendanton M ay 12,2022,thathe wouldbe filing the complaintthenextday.Thatnextday,however,M r.Xyalaand M r.Rubi discussed the tolling agreem entand w hetherM anfrediLefebvre w asa necessary party.Plaintiff Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 4 of 9 respondedthatno otherpal4ieswereneeded butagreed to an extension untilM ay 17.W hen Defendantasked form oretimeto allow M anfrediLefebvre'scounseltoprovidefeedback on the m ediation and tolling agreem ent,Plaintifftold Defendanton M ay 20;(EW ehavem ade every effol'tto avoid litigation,and have given you m any delaysand accom m odations.Ifw e do not have a tolling agreem entin place by M onday m orning,w e w illhave no alternative butto go forward.''AyalaDecl.,Ex.D at6.Receiving no response,Plaintifffiled thecomplainton M ay 23,2022.On thenextday when thecasenumberwasissued by the clerk,Plaintiffrequestedthe clerk sign the copy ofthesumm onsso thatPlaintiffcould initiate service.Before the summ ons w as signed by the clerk and before service ofprocess,the D efendantrem oved the case on M ay 26,2022.This Gssnap rem oval''isatissue in the Plaintiff's m otion forrem and. 1l. LeaalStandard ahd A nalysis A defendantm ay rem ove a case from state courtto federalcourtifthe districtcourt wouldhaveoriginaljtlrisdiction.Defeqdant,RoyalCaribbeanCruises,Ltd.removedthiscase basedsölelyontheCourt'sdiversityjurisdiction.Thereisnoquestionthatthepartiesare completely diverseandthattheamount-in-controversy requirem entissatisfied.Butoriginal jurisdictionisnotalwaysenough.Thereareadditionalhurdlestoremoveadiversitycaseto federalcourt,which areatissueinthiscaseandcoditiedat28U.S.C.j 1441(b)(2).W hen removingsolelyfordiversityjurisdiction,adefendantmaynotremoveStifany ofthepartiesin interestproperlyjoined andselwedasdefendantsisacitizenoftheStateinwhichsuchaction is brought.''28U.S.C.j 1441(b)(2).Thisprovision,l tnown asthefofum defendantrule,Sçordinarily , ' precludelsqremovalbasedon diversitywhentherearein-statedefendants,''whoarejoinedand served.Bowmanv.PHH M ortg.Corp.,423F.Supp.3d 1286,1288(N.D.Ala.2019).Thestatute creates an exception to allow rem ovalbefore thel; e is service ofprocess.Thatexception to the forum defendantruleisknown asCtsnap removal,''which isalitigation tacticwherethe Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 5 of 9 defendantcanbypasstheforum defendantrulefoundin j1441(b)(2)byremovihgacasebefore service.Delaughderv.ColonialPl pelineCo.,36017.Supp.3d 1372,1377(N.D.Ga.2018).This isthe issue in the Plaintiff'sm otion forrem and. The palies ascribe differentreadingsto the statute.Defendaptargues.the forum defendantrule doesnotbarremovalofthisaction because it:RoyalCaribbean,wasnotserved beforeitremovedthecase.ItarguesunderGoodwinv.Reynolds,757F.3d 1216,1220-21(11th Cir.2014)that28U.S.C.j 1441(b)createsanexceptiontotherule,whichpermitsin-stateforum defendantsto rem ovea case beforebeing served.And thereisno question herethatPlaintiffhad notyetservedRoyalCaribbean (indeed,ithadnothadan opportunitytodo so).By contrast, Plaintiffarguestheplain languageofj1441(b)precludesremovalby aforum defendantwhere, ashete,no defendantwasservedpriorto rem ovaland theforum-defendant,RoyalCaribbean,is the otaly dee fendant.Theteisflo questionhere thathad Plaintiffsenred RoyalCaribbean,itwould nothave been able to rem ove the cas' e underthe forum defendantrule. Thespecificquestioninthiscaseiswhetherj1441'sJxceptiontotheforum defendant ruleallowsrem ovalwheretheonly defendantisan in-state defendant,who had adkancenotice ofthecomplaint'sfiling and rem oved thecasebeforePlàintiffeven had an opportunity to serve process.ln decidingthisissue,ttleCourtismindfulthatitmustconstiuetheremokalprövisions narrowly.Scimonev.CarnivalCorp.,720F.3d876,882(11thCir.2013).Defendantbearsthe burden ofshowing rem ovalisappropriate.1d. Therearetwointel-pretationsofthestatuteinplay.befendant'sreadihg isamore simplisticone:theforum defendantruledoes' notpreclude remövalbecause ithad yetto be served.D efendanturges thatGoodw in stands forthisproposition.In G oodw in,how ever,the Eleventh Circuitrfoted thepropriety ofthe rem ovalw asnotatissue on appeal.The Eleventh . Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 6 of 9 Circuit,however,gavea strong indicasion in dicta thatiftheissuepresented,itwould not(stiethe districtcourt'shandsin thefaceofgam esm anship on thepartoftheD efendants.''Goodwin,757 F.3dat1221.UnderPlaintiffsintelyretation ofthestatute,theexception totheforum defendant rule isonly triggered whenthere arefnultiplçdefendantsand atleastonehasbeen served.It arguesthe exception does notapply here w here there isonly one in-state defendant,and the forum defendantrule appliesto barrem ovalofthisaction.Othercoul' tshaveconsideredwhat happensifnopartiesarejoinedandserved,asisthecasehere.Gentilev.BiogenIdec.,Inc.,934 p'.supp.2d313,317(o.Mass.2613)(statingthat''lmjanycourtshaverefusedtohonorremoval intheparticularly egregiouscaseofremovalby aforum defendantpriortoselwice.'). Citing Gentile,Plaintiffarguesthatûtthe statute assum esatleastone party hasbeen served;ignoring thatasstlm ption w ould rendera coul-t'sanalysis underthe exception nonsensical andthestatute'suseofGany'superfluous.''934F.Supp.2dat318(scAny'(1meansConeormore indiscrim inately from allthose of akind.'lnherentin the definition issom e num ber ofthe 'kind' from whiththe&oneormore'canbedrawn''Id ('quotingW ebster'sThirdNew lnternational . Didionalw 1536at97(3ded.198ù)).Coul' tshavefoundthatj1441(b)conditionsremovalon somedefen'dantbeingproperlyjoinedandserved.f#.;Bowman,423F.Supp.3dat1289 (tdguqnderthisintel-pretationofthestatute,whenthereisanin-statedefendant,atleastcine defendantmusthavebeenpïoperlyjoined andservedbeforeremovingfordiversity.'') Courtshavealsofoundtheword(joined''impliesthàttheexceptiontötheforum defendahtrule applies only w here there are tw o orm ore defendants- w here one isin-state and one is out-of-state.SeeA llen v.G laxosm ithK line,PLC,N o.07-5045,2008 W L 2247067,at*5 (E.D.Pa.M ay 30,2008)(çtBecausetheJperativéphraseisjoinedandserved'andnot(named and served'otsim ply tserved,'the statute contem platesa situation in w hich one defendantis 6 Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 7 of 9 joinedtoanotherdefendant,presumably anin-statedèfendantjoihedtoap öut-of-state defendant.'').PerAllen' sreading,theSdjoined andserved'langtlagethereforecanapplyonly whentherearemultiplenamed defendants.''Id Section 1441(b)lendsfurthersupporttothis interpretation because itreferences (Gdefendants''in the pluralim plying thatthe service requirem entapplies when there are m ultiple defendants. DefendantRoyalCéribbean istheonly defendantin thiscase and itisan in-stateforum defendant,w hich m eansthatunderthisintelw etation,the statutory exception to the forum defendantrule w ould notapply in this caseto allow rem oval.There are no otherdefendants,1et alone any ötherserved defendantsthatwould triggerthe exception to the fonlm defendantrule to allow a properrem oval.H aving found the exception does flotapply,the'Coul'tfindsthe forum defendantrule barsrem ovalofthisaction. Even ifthe statutöry textw ere notenough to com pelrem and,Plaintiff b interpretation of j1441(b)isconsistentwiththeremovalstatute'spurposeandthefundamentaltenetsofdiversity jurisdiction.Coul'tsCûfavoraninterpretation thatfurthersthemanifestpurposeofastatutesolong asthe interpretation is textually perm issible.''United States v.Spoor,Trustee,838 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1lth Cir.2016).Congressdevisedtheremovalstatuteanddiversityjurisdidiontoprotect out-of-statedefendantsfrolh homegrownstatéjuries.Consistentwiththeremovalscheme,the Courtconcludes thatltserviùe on atleastone defendantisrequired priorto rem oval...There is no conceivable reason w hy Corfgreàj would condition a forum defendant's ability to rem ove a diversity case on thetiming ofserkice.''Hawkipsv.Coitrell,Inc.,785F.Supp.2d 1361,1370 (N.D.Ga.2011);seealsoAllen,2008W L 2247067,at*4(ts-lhereisnosoundreasonto concludethatthepurposeofthejoined andserved'requirementistoalluw unszrved,in-state defendantstoremovetheaction.''). Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 8 of 9 Thisbegsthequestionofwhy CongressincludedtheGjoinedandserved''languageinthe firstplace.By passing thisexception to the forum defendantrule,Congress intended to prevent plaintifrsfrom eludingfederaljurisdictionbysimplynamingxfbrum defendantsthatthey didnot intendtoserve,apracticeknownasfraudulentjoinder.DetttscheBaniNat'1TrustCo.v.Old RepublicTitleIns.Glp.,Inc.,532 F.Supp.3d 1004,1014(D.Nev.2021)(holdingthatj 1441(b)(2)isG(asectionthatprovidesanarrow carve-outtotheforum defendantl'uletoprotect defendantsagainstgamesmanshipfrom plaintiffswhofraudulentlyjoinadefendantto improperlypreventremoval.'').Defendant'sinterpretationrequeststheCoul'ttakethisûçnarrow carve-out''andturntheremovalstatuteonitshead,whichwasdevisedtoprotectout-of-state defendantsfrom litigationinstatecourts.TheCoul-t,therefore,agreeswithPlaintiffthatj 1441(b)requiresatleastonedefendanttobeserved,an' din acase,such asthis,wherethereis only one in-state defendant,the exception to the forum defendantrule doesnotapply atall. The facts here also favorrem and.The only reason thiscase is in federalcourtin the first place is because the Plaintiffprovided advance copies ofthe com plaintto D efendantand provided a tim efram e forfiling.Forvariousm oltths,the partieshad ongoing discussions about the case and w hetherto m ediate.Even ifthatw ere notthe case,and D efendanthappened to stum ble upon the case w hen itm onitored the state cou14 docket,the state courtdelayed in issuing the signed sum m ons,which allow ed the D efendanta shol'tw indow to rem ove.Gentile,934 F. Supp.2dat322(findingremovalimproperwhenastatecourt'srulescreatedadelayin issuing thesummonsandplaintiffhadnooppodunityto serveforum defendantbeforeremoval).Likein Gentile,PlaintiffdidnothaveanLpportunitytoservetheonlydefendantinthiscasegiventhe state court's rulesforissuing sum m onses.D efendant'spurported rightto be in federalcoul'twas based on a technicality and D efendant's argtuuentthatthe filed com plained differed from the 8 Case 1:22-cv-21629-FAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 9 of 9 draftitreceived isofno mom ent.Thepointisithad noticeand wasable to takeadvantageofthe delay in the state court's issuance ofthe signed sum m onsto rem ove the case.See Goodwin,757 F.3dat1221-22 (statingitwouldnottiethedistrictcourt'àhandsinthefaceofgaluesmanshipby theforum-defendantwhoremovedbeforebeingserved).Surely,inthiscontext,zemandis PrOPe1-. D ON E AN D OR DER ED in Cham bersatM iam i,Florida,this ofN ovem ber2022. wr FEDERJ ' .M O UN ITED S ES D ISTRICT JUD GE Copies f' urnished to: CounselofRecord Clerk ofthe Coul'tforthe 11th JudicialCircuitin and forM iap i-D ade County,Florida

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.