Case 9:20-cv-81728-DMM Document 17-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020

Page 1 of 4
Case 9:17-cv-80723-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/ 17 P
of 4
f FiU:D s-(!!:::;,, "'1--f~- o.c7
IN THE CIRCU IT COURT OF JUN O9 2017 I
THE FIFTEE NTH JUDICI ALCIRC UIT i
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLO DA s:·)·.:,:_\';' ir-:~·, _:_' .•: 1
17-cv-80723 MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANN fN~w-~-L~:..:·:~---:-~:------1
FIRST Al\1ERICAN BANK, as Case No.: S0-2016-CA-009292
successo r by merger to Bank of Coral
Gables, LLC, DEFEN DANT'S NOTIC E OF
REMOVAL AND REMAND TO THE
Plaintiff UNITED STATE S DISTRI CT
COURT FOR THE SOUTH ERN
DISTRI CT OF FLORIDA
Vs.

LAURE NCE SCHNE IDER, STEPH ANIE L.

SCHNE IDER, et. Al.

Defendants

TO PLAINTIFF AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES:

PLEAS E TAKE NOTIC E that Defendants Laurenc e Schneide r and Stephanie

L
SCHNEIDER, In Pro Per, notices this matter to be remande d to the United States District
Court
for the Southern District of Florida, as the Circuit Court does not hold jurisdiction
over the
claim(s) and allegation(s) presented, and in support would state the following to-wit:

A. REMOVAL IS APPLIC ABLE HERE

Defendants filed a Federal District Court Complaint, regardin g a Federal Question raised

by Plaintiff in this matter during the scope of litigation. Defenda nts filed an FDCPA
and FRCA
Complai nt to recover within said Court and requests that this case be remanded to the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as they now hold jurisdiction.

"A-10"
Case 9:20-cv-81728-DMM Document 17-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020
Page 2 of 4
Case 9:17-cv-80723-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2017 Page
2 of 4

Defenda nls request this court close the above captione d case, and remand and redirect
it to

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida as a matter of law.

This notice is conjunct ively being filed in the District Court.

B. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Courts Jurisdict ion and Venue Clarifica tion Act of 2011 (the "Act"), signed

into law on Decemb er 7, 2011, became effective January 6, 2012. It applies to any case
either
commen ced in federal court or removed to federal court and "comme nced," as determin
ed under
State law.

The Act amends certain jurisdict ional and venue-related provisio ns of the United States

Code, includin g substant ially modifyin g the procedur es for removin g cases to federal
court. In
the Instant case, and based on the diversity of the parties, meets all the criteria for both
removal
and remand.

Accordin g to the Judiciary Commit tee Report on the Act, the changes made by the Act

were develope d and based on the recomme ndation of the United States Judicial Conferen
ce to
address the belief, expresse d by judges, that "the current rules force them to waste time

determin ing jurisdict ional issues at the expense of adjudica ting underlyi ng litigation."
[Report
112-10. p. 2.)

The Act was intended to "bring" more clarity to the operatio n of Federal jurisdict ional

statutes and facilitate the identification of the appropri ate State or federal court where
actions
should be brought. " Id. To that end, the Act contains both "jurisdictional improve ments,"
altering
the basis for ... diversity jurisdict ion and modifyin g the procedur es for removin g cases
to federal
court, and "venue and transfer improve ments," altering the determin ation of proper venue
and
giving courts discretio n to allow for an agreed-u pon transfer to a particula r forum.

2
Case 9:20-cv-81728-DMM Document 17-10 Entered on FLSD
Docket 10/21/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case 9:17-cv-80723-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docke
t 06/09/2017 Page 3 of 4

This case meets this litmus test.

Second, the Act adopts new procedures for establishing the amoun t in
controversy
necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction. New Section 1446(c) provid
es that "the sum
demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be
the amoun t in controversy,"
except in certain circumstances.

The Act allows a defend ant's notice of removal to establish the amoun
t in controversy if the
"initial pleading seeks (i) nonmonetary relief; or (ii) a money judgment,
but the State practice
either does not permit deman d for a specific sum or permits recovery
of damages in excess of the
amoun t demanded." Section 103(b) (3) (C). Further, the Act defines the
standard of proof
imposed on a defendant attempting to establish the amoun t in controv
ersy. Under new Section
1446(c) (2) (B), the district court must determine that the amount in contro
versy exceeds the
jurisdictional minim um "by the preponderance of the evidence." Id.

Finally, the Act makes clear that infonnation collected during state-c
ourt discovery may be
used to support removal even if removal is not appropriate based on
the initial pleading. See
Section 103(b)(3)(C) (adopting new Section 1446(c)(3)(A), which provid
es that "[i]f the case
stated by the initial pleading is not removable solely because the amoun
t in controversy does not
exceed the amount specified in section 1332(a), information relating
to the amount in
controversy in the record of the State proceeding, or in responses to discov
ery, shall be treated as
an 'other paper' under subsection (b)(3)."). According to the Judiciary
Report on the Act, these
procedures were intended to "address issues relating to uncertainty of
the amoun t in controversy
when removal is sought," including resolving a circuit split regarding
the burden of showing that
the amoun t in controversy is satisfied. See Report 112-10. p. 15.

3
Case 9:20-cv-81728-DMM Document 17-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 4 of
4
Case 9:17-cv-80723-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2017 Page 4 of 4

Third, while retaining the requirement that a notice of removal based on traditional

diversity jurisdiction be filed no later than one year after an action is commenced, the Act allows

defendant to avoid the one-year bar by demonstrating that the "plaintiff has acted in bad faith in

order to prevent a defendant from removing the action." See Section 103(b) (3) (C). As an

example of such bad faith, the Act expressly allows a defendant to remove a case following one

year if "the district court finds that the plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount

in controversy to prevent removal." ld.

Here Defendants again meet the test for removal and remanding the proceedings to the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida based on the foregoing.

CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons set forth, Defendants respectfully request that the

Court remand these proceedings to the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida, and any such other relief as the Court deems needed.

Respectfully Submitted this 9th Day of June 2017

ticj,REN ;E SCHNEIDER, Pro Se

360 Coconut Palm Rd.
Boca Raton, FL 33432
larry@sacapitalpartners.com