H. B. Realty Corporation v. Scorpion Marine Sales & Services, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying as moot in part 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint for Tenant Eviction and for Damages [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge John Antoon II on 3/14/2013. (BLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

H.B. REALTY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:12-cv-1029-Orl-28DAB

SCORPION MARINE SALES &
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
H.B. Realty Corporation has filed a Complaint for Tenant Eviction and for
Damages (Doc. 1) against Scorpion Marine Sales & Services, Inc. over alleged nonmonetary breaches of a landlord-tenant agreement and unauthorized use of certain
marina facilities that H.B. Realty owns. Scorpion moves to dismiss H.B. Realty’s case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 on the basis that the amount in controversy does
not exceed $75,000.2

Because H.B. Realty has not responded to Scorpion’s

jurisdictional challenge with any facts suggesting that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

1

Scorpion also argues in the alternative that the Court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens. Having concluded that H.B. Realty’s
claims do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, the Court will not address
this alternative argument.
2

This case is before the Court on Scorpion’s Verified Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7)
and H.B. Realty’s Response (Doc. 8).

I. Background
Scorpion subleases real property in Port Canaveral, Florida from H.B. Realty.3
On March 1, 2012, H.B. Realty sent a notice of default to Scorpion demanding that
Scorpion cure a number of non-monetary defaults under its sublease. The alleged
defaults consisted of fire code violations and a failure to carry certain forms of
insurance.4 H.B. Realty also owns a number of improvements—including wet slips, a
travel lift slip, forklift slips, and a fuel dock—and claims that Scorpion uses them without
permission.
H.B. Realty now seeks a judgment of possession for the subleased property, an
award of damages for the non-monetary breaches, a declaratory judgment regarding
whether Scorpion has a right to use the improvements, and attorney’s fees.
II. Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have jurisdiction over any civil
case in which the parties are “citizens of different States” and “the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” Plaintiffs have
the “‘burden both to allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction . . .
and, if appropriately challenged . . . to support the allegation.’” Morrison v. Allstate

3

The property is located at 960 Mullet Road, Port Canaveral, Florida 32920.
(Compl. ¶ 5).
4

The notice of default listed the following code violations: “[f]ailure to properly
install and schedule inspection of required Fire Alarm system,” “[f]ailure to provide
parking for the ships store . . . [as] required on the original site plan,” failure to test a
“[m]anual wet standpipe system . . . in dry boat storage,” and “block[ing] entrance to
north dry boat storage area.” The letter also noted that Scorpion appeared not to carry
certain forms of insurance and requested Scorpion either to explain why it was not
required to carry such insurance or to provide proof of coverage. (Doc. 1-4).
2

Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co.
v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 287 n.10 (1938)).

Although “a court owes some

deference to a diversity plaintiff’s amount in controversy allegations, and should dismiss
the suit for lack of jurisdiction only when ‘it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the
plaintiff cannot recover [the requisite amount in controversy],’ that deference does not
eviscerate the court’s obligation to scrupulously enforce its jurisdictional limitations.” Id.
at 1272 (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting St. Paul, 303 U.S. at
289). “While a federal court must of course give due credit to the good faith claims of
the plaintiff, a court would be remiss in its obligations if it accepted every claim of
damages at face value, no matter how trivial the underlying injury.” Diefenthal v. Civil
Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982). For these reasons, “a conclusory
allegation that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied [is] insufficient to
sustain jurisdiction once that allegation is challenged.” Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1272 n.17.
Moreover, the monetary value of the benefit a plaintiff will receive from equitable relief
must be sufficiently measurable and certain to satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement. See, e.g., id. at 1268-69; Ericsson GE Mobile Commc’ns, Inc. v. Motorola
Commc’ns & Elecs., Inc., 120 F.3d 216, 221-22 (11th Cir. 1997).
H.B. Realty fails to satisfy these standards. As Scorpion argues, it appears that
H.B. Realty has filed a “run of the mill landlord-tenant case” in federal district court
without pleading any specific facts suggesting that its claims could satisfy the $75,000
amount-in-controversy requirement. (Mot. Dismiss at 1).
H.B. Realty responds to Scorpion’s jurisdictional challenge only with conclusory
statements that the value of each of its claims exceeds $75,000 and the bald assertion

3

that the exhibits attached to the Complaint support its allegations. H.B. Realty states
that these exhibits “provide additional factual support underlying Plaintiff’s bona fide
allegations as to the required amount in controversy, such as the lease terms, monetary
values, and various claims of default,” (Pl.’s Resp. at 3), but it has not pointed to any
particular facts in the exhibits or otherwise explained how the exhibits support the
jurisdictional amount.5
Having reviewed these exhibits, the Court sees nothing in them to indicate how
H.B. Realty’s claims could satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
Although the Assignment and Assumption of Sublease lists the subleased property’s
assessed value for 2010,6 H.B. Realty does not claim that Scorpion is in monetary
default, so it is not apparent how the property’s assessed value relates to the value of a
potential eviction. The exhibits also do not contain any facts indicating how Scorpion’s
alleged non-monetary defaults could translate into damages or showing the potential
value to H.B. Realty of a declaratory judgment resolving Scorpion’s right to use the
contested improvements.
In sum, H.B. Realty’s conclusory response fails to support the amount-incontroversy requirement. Because H.B. Realty has not shown that the value of its case
exceeds $75,000, the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

5

These exhibits, totaling 108 pages, consist of a Sublease (Doc. 1-2), an
Assignment and Assumption of Sublease (Doc. 1-3), a Notice of Default (Doc. 1-4), and
a Joint Venture Agreement (Doc. 1-5).
6

A document in Exhibit B to the Assignment and Assumption of Sublease lists
the assessed total value of the land and improvements at 960 Mullet Road as $600,000.
(Doc. 1-3 at 33).
4

III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Scorpion’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED with respect to subject
matter jurisdiction and DENIED as moot with respect to forum non
conveniens.
2. H.B. Realty’s Complaint for Tenant Eviction and for Damages (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 14, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

5