Mancini v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER denying 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/5/2013. (MAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MICHELE MANCINI, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:13-cv-218-FtM-29UAM
SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS, LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #13) filed on June 21,
2013.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15) on July 6, 2013.
For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is denied.
I.
Subcontracting Concepts, LLC (defendant) provides businesses
with independently contracted couriers at a reduced rate.
#8, ¶ 7.)
(Doc.
On September 1, 2009, Michele Mancini (plaintiff) was
hired by defendant as a courier and was treated as an independent
contractor.
(Id. ¶¶ 6, 9.)
While making a delivery for defendant
on May 10, 2010, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident
which rendered her totally and permanently disabled.
28.)
(Id. ¶¶ 27-
Plaintiff maintains she was actually an employee, not an
independent contractor, and therefore defendant was required by
Florida law to maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage
for her.
Plaintiff presents a single count alleging the tort of
failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance.
Defendant seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint asserts federal
jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship.
Defendant,
however, asserts that plaintiff’s claim falls squarely within the
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
the
Florida
Judges
of
Compensation
Claims, resulting in a claim for which neither a state court nor a
federal district court has jurisdiction.
II.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) provides for
dismissal
of
jurisdiction.
an
action
if
the
court
lacks
subject
matter
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may come
in the form of either a “facial” or “factual” attack.
Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924
(11th Cir. 2003).
Morrison v.
A factual
attack challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction
using materials extrinsic from pleadings, such as affidavits or
testimony. Stalley ex. rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys.,
Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2008).
In contrast, a
facial attack requires the Court to determine whether the pleader
has sufficiently alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
Id.
When presented with a facial attack, such as the one made by
-2-
defendant, the Court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations
in the complaint as true for purposes of the motion.
Hill v.
White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003).
III.
The
Florida
workers’
compensation
system
provides
the
exclusive remedy for an employee injured in the course and scope of
employment.
See Fla. Stat. § 440.11; Pensacola Christian Coll. v.
Bruhn, 80 So. 3d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Historically, the
state Judges of Compensation Claims “have exclusive subject matter
jurisdiction over disputed workers’ compensation claim matters.”
Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Fla. 2008).
There are, however, two exceptions: (1) when the employer fails to
secure workers’ compensation coverage; or (2) when the employer
commits an intentional tort.
See Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1)(a)-(b);
Bruhn, 80 So. 3d at 1049.
Here, it is clear that one of the primary issues is whether
plaintiff
was
an
employee,
and
thus
entitled
to
workers’
compensation insurance coverage, or an independent contractor who
was not entitled to such insurance coverage.
The Eleventh Circuit
has held that under Florida law this is a question of law for a
court to determine.
Judy v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 844 F.2d
1496, 1503 (11th Cir. 1988).
This case does not seek damages under
the Florida workers’ compensation statutory scheme, but seeks
-3-
damages for failure to obtain such coverage for plaintiff as an
employee.
Such a claim is within the jurisdiction of the court.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(Doc. #13) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
December, 2013.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-4-
5th
day of
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?