ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Reply to Order [Doc. #4] and Consent to Remand to State Court (Doc. #7) filed on August 13, 2014, and plaintiff's Partially Unopposed Motion for Remand (Opposed as to Attorney's Fees and Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)) (Doc. #8) filed on August 14, 2014.

On August 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. #4) directing defendant to file a Supplement to the Notice of Removal to show subject-matter jurisdiction was indeed present as the Notice of Removal (Doc. #1) was deficient. In response, defendant states that although he thought plaintiff was a corporation, he later learned that plaintiff is the managing member of a Florida limited liability company and its principal is the managing member of another Florida limited liability company. (Doc. #7.) Therefore, defendant concedes that the case should be remanded because no diversity of citizenship is present.

Plaintiff agrees to the remand but seeks attorney's fees and costs for the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)1, and with opposition. Plaintiff argues that the case was clearly not removable because defendant is a Florida citizen and therefore the "forum defendant rule" prohibited removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The forum defendant rule is a non-jurisdictional defect, Courtney v. BLP Mobile Paint Mfg. Co, Inc., CIV.A. 12-0318-WS-C, 2012 WL 5869120, *1-2 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 19, 2012)(collecting cases), and defendant promptly agreed to a remand upon issuance of the Court's Order and shortly after removal. As there was no significant delay and the Court cannot say that there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal, the Court will exercise its discretion and deny the request for fees and costs. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (absent unusual circumstances, attorney fees should not be awarded when the removing party has "an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.").

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED