Earl Bryant v. Hutchinson Auto Mall


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Earl A Bryant. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 12-10567 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10567 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00079-CHW EARL A. BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HUTCHINSON AUTO MALL, Defendant-Appellee. ___________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ____________________________ (September 6, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s Case: 12-10567 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 2 of 2 dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. First, Earl Bryant’s complaint against Hutchinson Auto Mall did not assert any federal claims. Thus, there was no federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, according to the complaint and its attachments, Mr. Bryant and Hutchinson Auto Mall were both citizens of Georgia, and Mr. Bryant sought only $2,400 in damages. As a result, there was no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010) (“For federal diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.” (citations omitted)). Third, Mr. Bryant has failed to address the jurisdictional issues in his brief, and they are therefore waived. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?