Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. et al v. Westover Car Rental, LLC et al

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to forego administrative closure, for leave to amend, and for limited jurisdiction. The case was not administratively closed so that motion is denied; the request for limited jur isdictional discovery is denied; and the motion for leave to amend is granted. Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days if they are able to do so. If not, the case will be closed without further notice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/10/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DOLLAR RENT A CAR, INC.,
THRIFTY RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM,
INC.,
and
THE
HERTZ
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-363-FtM-29CM

WESTOVER CAR RENTAL, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability
company, PHILIP R. MOOAR,
CARL
P.
PALADINO,
JOEL
CASTLEVETERE,
ENRICO
D’ABATE,
and
MICHAEL
G.
DILLON,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs’
Motion to Forego Administrative Closure of Case and for Leave to
File Amended Complaint Based on Limited Jurisdictional Discovery
(Doc. #56) filed on April 21, 2017, in light of the Court’s Opinion
and Order (Doc. #55) dismissing the Amended Complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs

seek 45 days to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to support
subject matter jurisdiction, and for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.
No response has been filed and the time to respond has
expired.

The

Court

notes

that

defendants

contest

personal

jurisdiction in the State of Florida, and alternatively sought to
transfer venue before the dismissal of the Amended Complaint, and
therefore have entered no formal appearance.

(Doc. #36.)

For the reasons stated below, the Court declines to allow
jurisdictional discovery under the auspices of this federal case.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing
only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”

Gunn v.

Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).

“It is to be

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, [ ]
and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction [ ].”
citations omitted).

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (internal

“If the plaintiff fails to shoulder that

burden, the case must be dismissed.”

Williams v. Poarch Band of

Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016).
To

carry

this

burden,

plaintiff

must

set

forth

in

its

complaint “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

The filing of a

complaint certifies that the factual contentions have evidentiary
support to the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry.
11(b)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Here, there are no factual allegations which assert a

basis for diversity jurisdiction, the only potential basis for
federal jurisdiction in this case.

- 2 -

The Court declines to allow

plaintiff to use the discovery mechanisms of federal court before
it is even able to assert in good faith a basis for federal
jurisdiction.

Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1216

(11th Cir. 2007).
The Court will grant plaintiffs the opportunity to amend, if
they can in good faith allege a factual basis for subject matter
jurisdiction.

However,

no

jurisdictional

permitted at this stage of the proceedings.
Essex

Ins.

Co.,

(Dismissal,

178

without

F.3d

1209,

permitting

1214

discovery

will

be

See, e.g., Posner v.

n.7

(11th

jurisdictional

Cir.

1999)

discovery,

is

appropriate when the dismissal occurs before any discovery has
been taken.). 1
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Forego Administrative Closure of Case
and

for

Leave

to

File

Amended

Complaint

Based

on

Limited

Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. #56) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part:
1. The motion to forego administrative closure of case is
denied as the case was not closed, administratively or
otherwise;

1

No Case Management Report has been filed in this case. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); M.D. Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(B) (“a party may
not seek discovery from any source before the [Rule 26(f)]
meeting”).

- 3 -

2. The motion for limited jurisdictional discovery is denied;
and
3. The motion for leave to file amended complaint is granted.
Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint

within

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order if they are able to do
so.

The failure to file a second amended complaint will

result in the closure of this case without further notice
and without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of May, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 4 -

10th

day