Opinion
8:21-cv-2011-CEH-SPF
01-03-2023
DETRICK CLARKE, Plaintiff, v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Doc. 15) which Defendant opposes in part, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees (Doc. 16). The Court, having reviewed the parties' submissions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion. The Court will grant the request for remand and deny the request for attorney's fees.
DISCUSSION
The Complaint, initially filed in state court, alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), as well as a violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Doc. 1-4. Defendant removed the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 1.
The case was temporarily stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit's en banc resolution of the appeal in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. Doc. 13. In that case, Hunstein-like Plaintiff here-alleged that a debt collection agency violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by disclosing information about his debt to a third party. Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2022). The sole issue before the Eleventh Circuit was whether plaintiff had Article III standing. Id. at 1241. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision on September 8, 2022, finding that Hunstein lacked standing to pursue his claims in federal court because he pleaded what could be characterized, at best, as an intangible harm resulting from a statutory violation. Id. at 1250. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's request for remand, and the Court agrees with the parties that based upon the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, this matter should be remanded to state court.
The Court will, however, deny Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” However, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” 24e Fitness, LLC v. Internal Credit Sys. Inc., No. 21-11888, 2022 WL 1222312, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (citing Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)). Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees here will be denied because there was an objectively reasonable basis for subject matter jurisdiction at the time Defendant removed this case to federal court. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit's governing ruling at the time stated that an alleged violation of § 1692c(b) gave a plaintiff standing to sue in federal court. See Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 994 F.3d 1341, 1348-1349 (11th Cir.), opinion vacated and superseded on reh'g, 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 17 F.4th 1103 (11th Cir. 2021), and on reh'g en banc, 48 F.4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part to the extent it seeks remand. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is DENIED.
2. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.
3. The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida.
4. The Clerk is further directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and to CLOSE this case.