Lawrence v. ACE American Insurance Company, 8:18-cv-738-T-26TGW. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180411906
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the Plaintiff's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Dkt. 12) is denied. It is well-settled that a federal court has an "unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it, "and this case presents nothing so extraordinary as to eviscerate that obligation." Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Electric Capital Corp
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the Plaintiff's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Dkt. 12) is denied. It is well-settled that a federal court has an "unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it, "and this case presents nothing so extraordinary as to eviscerate that obligation." Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Electric Capital Corp...
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the Plaintiff's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Dkt. 12) is denied. It is well-settled that a federal court has an "unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it, "and this case presents nothing so extraordinary as to eviscerate that obligation." Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Electric Capital Corp., 727 F.3d 1127, 1131 (11th Cir. 2013). Additionally, in light of this "unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on this Court, the Court is only authorized to defer to a parallel state court proceedings under limited and exceptional circumstances, none of which are present in this case. See Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks and Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 997 (11th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, this Court is more than familiar with the principles of Florida law governing a Coblentz1 agreement which is at the core of this removed case. See Culbreath Isles Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 151 F.Supp.3d 1282 (M.D. Fla. 2015), aff'd, 841 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13) is denied as moot. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss within the time frame imposed by Local Rule 3.01(b).
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Coblentz v. American Sur. Co., 416 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1969).
Source: Leagle
