ORDER. Plaintiff's "Motion to Remand to State Court" (Doc. [7]) is denied. Plaintiff's "Motion to Shorten Deadlines and Expedite" (Doc. [11]) is denied. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 10/12/2023. (EKB)
Page 1 PagelD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY
GROUP CORP.,
Plaintiff,
Vv. Case No. 8:23-cv-1535-TPB-AAS
WP COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs “Motion to Remand to State Court”
(Doc. 7). Defendant’s original notice of removal (Doc. 1) contained an obvious scrivener’s
error stating that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware, a fact that would defeat diversity
jurisdiction, despite alleging that complete diversity existed and setting forth specific
allegations demonstrating that Defendant is a citizen only of Washington. Defendant
filed a corrected notice of removal acknowledging it made a mistake, and clarifying that
Defendant is a citizen of Washington. (Doc. 13).
“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or
appellate courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Plaintiffs only ground for seeking remand is
therefore moot. As it appears there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, the motion to remand is DENIED. Plaintiffs “Motion to
Shorten Deadlines and Expedite” (Doc. 11) is also DENIED.
Had Plaintiffs counsel simply conferred with opposing counsel, as required by
Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant’s mistake would certainly have been identified and
Page 1 of 2Page 2 PagelD
corrected, and this entire round of motion practice — including approximately 20 total
pages of unnecessary filings — would have been avoided. The Court notes that in the
short life of this case both parties have already violated Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., which
requires that the rules of procedure be employed by the parties “to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” See (Docs. 19;
20). Advocacy that violates Rule 1 is not effective.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of October,
2023.
=?
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 8:23-cv-01535-TPB-AAS Document 35 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PagelD 375
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY
GROUP CORP.,
Plaintiff,
Vv. Case No. 8:23-cv-1535-TPB-AAS
WP COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs “Motion to Remand to State Court”
(Doc. 7). Defendant’s original notice of removal (Doc. 1) contained an obvious scrivener’s
error stating that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware, a fact that would defeat diversity
jurisdiction, despite alleging that complete diversity existed and setting forth specific
allegations demonstrating that Defendant is a citizen only of Washington. Defendant
filed a corrected notice of removal acknowledging it made a mistake, and clarifying that
Defendant is a citizen of Washington. (Doc. 13).
“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or
appellate courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Plaintiffs only ground for seeking remand is
therefore moot. As it appears there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, the motion to remand is DENIED. Plaintiffs “Motion to
Shorten Deadlines and Expedite” (Doc. 11) is also DENIED.
Had Plaintiffs counsel simply conferred with opposing counsel, as required by
Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant’s mistake would certainly have been identified and
Page 1 of 2
PDF Page 3
Case 8:23-cv-01535-TPB-AAS Document 35 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PagelD 376
corrected, and this entire round of motion practice — including approximately 20 total
pages of unnecessary filings — would have been avoided. The Court notes that in the
short life of this case both parties have already violated Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., which
requires that the rules of procedure be employed by the parties “to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” See (Docs. 19;
20). Advocacy that violates Rule 1 is not effective.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of October,
2023.
=?
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Back to 
