Altier v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER -- Plaintiff's requests for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 1) are DENIED. On or before October 18, 2016, the parties are DIRECTED to file a joint statement concerning the propriety of this Court's exercise of jurisdiction in light of the Bankruptcy and the State Court Case. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/31/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOSEPH E. ALTIER,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Case No. 6:16-cv-1752-Orl-37TBS

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.;
SUNTRUST BANK; GOSHEN
MORTGAGE, LLC; PLANET HOME
LENDING, LLC; CHRISTIANA TRUST;
and JOHN DOES 1–5,
Defendants.
______________________________________

ORDER
This cause is before the Court for jurisdictional review. See Travaglio v. Am. Exp.
Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting the court’s constitutional obligation to
dismiss actions sua sponte where sufficient jurisdictional allegations are absent from the
complaint, and “the plaintiff does not cure the deficiency”).
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to file Aa short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court=s jurisdiction. . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Initially,
the Court notes that pro se plaintiff Joseph Altier (“Plaintiff”) has not alleged the requisite
facts to establish diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 1 (See Doc. 1.) Notably,

1

To establish diversity jurisdiction, the factual allegations of the Complaint must show
1

Plaintiff has included no allegations concerning his own citizenship. 2 (See Doc. 1, ¶ 1.)
As to the Defendants—Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. (“STMI”); Suntrust Bank (“STB”); Goshen
Mortgage, LLC (“GM LLC”); Planet Home Lending, LLC (“PHL LLC”); Christiana Trust
(“Trust”); and five “John Doe” Defendants, Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are
similarly deficient. 3 (See id. ¶¶ 2–7.)
Nonetheless, it appears that the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be appropriate based on Plaintiff’s allegations
concerning the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (“TILA”). (See id. ¶ 8; but see id.
¶¶ 23, 24 (suggesting that Plaintiff’s TILA claim is merely a defense to a foreclosure
action pending in state court); see also Doc. 15 (advising that this action is related to a
proceeding pending in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange County

that: (1) the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse; and (2) the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff has alleged that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 7.)
2

For natural persons, citizenship equates to domicile—not residence. See Travaglio,
735 F.3d at 1269 (emphasis added); Molinos Valle Del Cibao v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330,
1341–42 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of Florida. (See
Doc. 1, ¶ 1.)

3

Citizenship of an “unincorporated business association or entity,” such as a limited
liability company depends on the citizenship of its individual members. See Scuotto v.
Lakeland Tours, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1393, 2013 WL 6086046, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19,
2013). For an incorporated entity, citizenship turns on the state of incorporation and the
location of the entity’s principal place of business. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365,
1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff insufficiently alleges that STMI, STB, GM LLC, PHL
LLC, and the Trust are simply “foreign corporations.” (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2–6.)
2

Florida—No. 2013-CA-012147-O (“State Court Case”)).) 4
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
At paragraphs 19–25 of his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks entry of a temporary
restraining order and other injunctive relief to prevent Defendants’ continued pursuit of a
“wrongful foreclosure action” and otherwise prohibit enforcement of a loan contract.
(See Doc. 1.) These requests are insufficient and in derogation of numerous provisions
of the Court’s Local Rules dealing with requests for emergency injunctive relief. 5
See Local Rule 4.05. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for emergency injunctive relief are
due to be denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s requests for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 1) are DENIED.

2.

On or before October 18, 2016, the parties are DIRECTED to file a joint
statement concerning the propriety of this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in

4

The Court is advised that this action also relates to an action pending in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida—No. 6:15-bk-1838-KSJ (Bankr. M.D.
Fla. 2015) (“Bankruptcy”).
5

Among other things, Plaintiff failed to: (1) include an allegation that “the moving party is
threatened with irreparable injury [that] is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the
application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not impossible” (see Local
Rule 4.05(b)(2)); (2) provide a “proposed form of temporary restraining order” (see Local
Rule 4.05(b)(3)); and (3) set forth facts “on which the Court can make a reasoned
determination as to the amount of security which must be posted pursuant to Rule 65(c)”
(see Local Rule 4.05(b)(3)). Plaintiff also failed to submit a certification stating “any
efforts made to give notice” to the opposing party “and the reasons why” notice should
not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B).
3

light of the Bankruptcy and the State Court Case.
3.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action
without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 31, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

4