David Zinn, et al v. SCI Funeral Services of Florid, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Michelle Baio and David Zinn. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-11552

Date Filed: 06/11/2014

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11552
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:12-cv-80788-KLR

DAVID ZINN, MICHELLE BAIO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
NORTHSTAR FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
NORTHSTAR CEMETERY SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
LEVITT WEINSTEIN MEMORIAL CHAPELS, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
LEVITT WEINSTEIN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC.,
a Florida corporation, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 11, 2014)

Case: 13-11552

Date Filed: 06/11/2014

Page: 2 of 3

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from a decision by the district court dismissing the
plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing under Article III. The plaintiffs are two
individuals who reserved grave plots and purchased pre-need burial services at
cemeteries run by the defendants. They filed their original complaint in state court
as a class action. The complaint alleged that the defendants routinely defiled the
graves in their cemeteries through various unsavory practices, such as making
room for more bodies by moving or damaging the outer burial containers of
individuals who were already buried. It further alleged that the defendants covered
up those defilements so that customers would not learn about them. Based on
those allegations, the original complaint sought damages on behalf of all the
individuals who had loved ones buried at those cemeteries, as well as all the
individuals who had reserved grave plots or purchased pre-need burial services at
those cemeteries.
After the defendants removed the case to federal court using a provision of
the Class Action Fairness Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), the plaintiffs
amended their complaint to remove the request for class action certification. But
when the plaintiffs amended their complaint, they failed to include any factual
*

Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2

Case: 13-11552

Date Filed: 06/11/2014

Page: 3 of 3

allegations establishing that the grave plots they reserved had actually been
affected by the alleged acts of the defendants.
As a result, their amended complaint does not allege the injury-in-fact
necessary to establish standing under Article III. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). Similarly, their failure
to allege any personal detriment means that their Florida statutory claims assert
mere “abstract statutory violation[s],” which Article III prevents us from deciding.
See Charvat v. Mut. First Fed. Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir. 2013).
We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint
with prejudice. We note that our conclusion is consistent with an earlier decision
by another panel of this Court holding that a nearly identical complaint failed to
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. See Schwartz v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla.,
No. 13-11830, 2014 WL 443588 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2014).
AFFIRMED.

3