Pulley v. TGR Financial, Inc. et al

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint filed by Edward Pulley for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint within 7 days of this Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/1/2014. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD PULLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-357-FtM-29CM

TGR
FINANCIAL,
INC.,
a
Florida
corporation
and
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE
GULF COAST, a national bank,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of the Complaint
(Doc. #1) filed on June 27, 2014.1

Plaintiff alleges that the

Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because defendant First
National Bank of the Gulf Coast is a national federal bank and
“because the Shareholder Agreement provides such.”

(Id., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as a shareholder of the holding
company (TGR Financial, Inc.) that is the sole shareholder of the
national bank (First National Bank of the Gulf Coast).
As a preliminary matter, the Court does not have subjectmatter jurisdiction “merely because the defendant bank [i]s a
federally chartered bank.”

1

Morast v. Lance, 807 F.2d 926, 929

If the Court determines “at any time” that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case.
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

(11th Cir. 1987).

The Court also does not have subject-matter

jurisdiction over the case merely because the parties may have
stipulated to jurisdiction in federal court.

Bush v. United

States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir. 1983)(citations omitted).
Also, to the extent plaintiff relies upon 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as a
basis

for

jurisdiction,

the

Declaratory

Judgment

Act

is

“procedural only” and does not provide a basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction.

Medtronic. Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC,

134 S. Ct. 843, 848 (2014); Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671 (1950).
The Complaint presents no clear federal question, see 28
U.S.C. § 1331, or a diversity of citizenship and qualifying amount
in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), but plaintiff may be able
to assert diversity as a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
This requires complete diversity of citizenship, and that the
matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.

28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate

Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s citizenship or place of domicile is not alleged.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant First National Bank of the Gulf
Coast is a national bank with its principal place of business in
Naples,

Florida.

(Doc.

#1,

¶

5.)

“All

national

banking

associations shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or
against them, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are

2

respectively

located.”

28

U.S.C.

§

1348.

For

diversity

jurisdiction purposes, a national bank is a citizen of the State
designated in its articles of association as its main office.
Wachovia

Bank,

N.A.

v.

Schmidt,

546

U.S.

303,

318

(2006).

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant TGR Financial, Inc. is a
Florida corporation.

(Doc. #1, ¶ 6.) A corporation is a citizen

of both the state of its incorporation and the state where it has
its principal place of business.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

The

principal place of business is determined by the “nerve center”
test.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81 (2010).
Plaintiff

will

be

provided

an

opportunity

to

state

the

presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for lack of subjectmatter

jurisdiction

without

prejudice

to

filing

an

Amended

1st

day of

Complaint within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
July, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

3