Did the Eleventh Circuit err in imposing sanctions on the defendant's lawyer for removing the case to federal court?

QUESTION PRESENTED In order to avoid removal to Federal Court, Florida State Court personal injury plaintiffs’ attorneys routinely fail to specify in their complaints the amounts of damages sought and, instead, formulaically assert that their clients’ claims are “in excess of $15,000.00".' Every effort is then made in pre-trial discovery proceedings to prevent the amount of the claim from being locked down. Answers to written interrogatories provide limited information and assert that the amount of the claim is “undetermined”. Questions posed at depositions are deflected. In this action, the ploy was escalated to the extreme. The jury was selected. Opening statements were made. On cross-examination, the plaintiff was not forthcoming. Then the parties rested. Having exhausted all avenues for delay, the plaintiffs attorney filed a written motion for a directed verdict in which he asked for damages in an amount that was in excess of $75,000.00, the trigger amount under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendant finally had a good faith, non-speculative belief that diversity jurisdiction existed and removed the case to Federal Court. There is generally a one-year time limit on removal after a complaint is filed or until the defendant receives, from the plaintiff, “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” showing facts to establish Federal Court subject-matter jurisdiction. ' Effective January 1, 2020, the civil controversy subject-matter jurisdiction of the Florida Circuit Court was changed from claims in excess of $15,000.00 to claims in excess of $30,000.00. 2 Thus, a civil action may not be removed until the defendant receives an unambiguous statement of the claim and has a good faith belief that the jurisdictional predicate amount is satisfied. The Eleventh Circuit has admonished defendants’ counsel not to remove a proceeding based purely on speculation as the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff successfully “stonewalled” the defendant’s effort to establish that the plaintiff was claiming damages in excess of $75,000.00 until more than one year had elapsed after the filing of the complaint. Immediately after the plaintiff's counsel disclosed that his client was seeking more than $75,000.00 in damages, the defendant removed the lawsuit to Federal Court. But the Federal Court rewarded the plaintiff's effort to obstruct the defendant’s right to remove by remandingon the basis of the expiration of the one-year limitationthe civil action to the Florida State Court and imposing monetary sanctions on the defendant's lawyer pursuant to Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 11"). The defendant’s lawyer appealed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Did the Eleventh Circuit err when it affirmed the District Court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, for the removal by Petitioners Lawrence Richard Metsch and Metschlaw, P.A. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Metsch”) of the Florida State Court personal injury action of Respondent Timothy Hajdasz (“Hajdasz”) against Magic Burgers, LLC (“MBLLC’, notwithstanding Metsch’s heeding of the Eleventh Circuit’s Rule 11-based warning in Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F. 3d 1184, 1213, fn. 63 (11 Cir. 2007)? 3