Wilkins et al v. Stapleton et al

Filing 5

ORDER -- The Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before August 8, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/1/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
VANESSA WILKINS; VICTORIA
POUNCY; ANNETTE STAPLETON;
and SHANNON STAPLETON,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK

MARISSA STAPLETON; and JOHN
DOES 1–25,
Defendants.
ORDER
Today, as on nearly every day, the Court turns to address a new civil action that
fails to allege sufficient facts to support subject matter jurisdiction. 1 In the desperate hope
that perhaps—just perhaps—members of the Bar will read, mark, learn, inwardly digest, 2
and—most importantly—apply this fundamental principle to litigation in federal court,
this reminder:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction!
As a consequence of this constitutional edict, subject matter jurisdiction must be properly
alleged in every complaint and notice of removal filed in this Court. If it is not, then the
Court must summarily dismiss, or remand the action to state court.

1In

just the first seven months of 2017, the Bar’s failure to meet this minimum
jurisdictional pleading standard has required the Undersigned to dismiss, remand, or
issue show cause orders in 42 civil actions.
2See BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, Proper 28 (1662).
-1-

Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading challenge for the Bar.3
Time and again, counsel’s submissions improperly allege an individual’s residency
instead of citizenship and an unincorporated business entity’s (LLCs, e.g.) “principal
place of business” instead of the identity and citizenship of every individual member.
This failure to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the jurisdictional
requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of judicial resources that cannot
continue. 4
This case is yet another example of counsel’s failure to appreciate the fact that, in
order to proceed in federal court, the litigant must establish subject matter jurisdiction by
pleading facts that support it. In compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, if you are unsure about how to properly allege citizenship, do some basic
research. Pending review of the applicable law, here are a few hints.
►

DO NOT allege the “residence” of a party—citizenship
is what counts.

►

DO NOT allege that you do not know the citizenship
of a party.

►

DO NOT allege jurisdictional facts “on information
and belief.”

3When

an action is brought under § 1332, the Court must be sure that the plaintiff
has alleged that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring “a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” in every complaint).
4 The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest
district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent screening
cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of deficiencies, then
rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause orders is time that could
and should be devoted to the substantive work of the Court.
-2-

►

DO know the differences between an incorporated
entity and an LLC or a partnership for diversity
purposes. 5

►

DO understand that until you have drilled down to a
real person or incorporated entity and alleged their
citizenship, you have not arrived.

►

DO know what constitutes sufficient proof of the
amount in controversy requirement.

►

DO allege a basis of jurisdiction for every claim
asserted—not just for the case as a whole.

Again, if you do not know or are unsure of the differences among business entities,
or the proof required for the amount in controversy, or any other matter—look it up
before filing a complaint or removing from state court. The classic errors in the Complaint
filed in this action, which are highlighted below, provide a good start for counsel who
must do better.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal courts have the “power to decide only certain type of cases”—including
cases brought based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Morrison v.
Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Federal courts also have the
obligation, in every case, to “zealously insure that jurisdiction exists.” See Smith v. GTE

5The

citizenship of an incorporated business entity turns on the entity’s State of
incorporation and the State where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1). The citizenship of an “unincorporated business association or entity”
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); see also Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, UK v. Ocean Walk Resort Condo. Assoc., No. 6:16-cv-258Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL 3034069 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2017).
-3-

Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). When subject matter jurisdiction is absent,
courts “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Dismissal and repleader also is required whenever a party files a shogun
complaint. 6 Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1127–28 (11th Cir. 2014)
(criticizing district court for failing to police shotgun pleadings). Shotgun complaints
result when a plaintiff “fails to follow Rules 8 and 10.” 7 See Hickman v. Hickman,
563 F. App’x 742, 744 (11th Cir. 2014). A quintessential shotgun complaint includes
multiple counts that indiscriminately incorporate by reference all of the preceding
paragraphs of the Complaint. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1320–23 (11th Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiffs assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over their
estate planning dispute “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332” (Doc. 1, ¶ 2), but they have not
provided the necessary factual allegations to support their jurisdictional assertion. To the
contrary, Plaintiff has identified the residency of the named parties (id. ¶¶ 4–8), even

6District

courts must dismiss such pleadings because they: (1) frustrate the joinder
of issues and control of discovery; (2) cause unmanageable trial dockets; and (3) result in
a loss of “confidence in the court’s ability to administer justice.” See Anderson v. Dist. Bd.
of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996).
7Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth minimum
requirements for complaints filed in this Court. At a minimum, such filings must:
(1) include “short and plain” statements of the pleader’s claims set forth in “numbered
paragraphs each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances;” and
(2) provide more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitation of the
elements of a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 8(d), 10(b); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Local Rules 1.05, 1.06.
-4-

though subject matter jurisdiction turns on an individual party’s citizenship. Plaintiffs
also improperly name twenty-five fictitious parties with no jurisdictional allegations at
all. See House v. SE Freight Lines, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-0084-MHS, 2009 WL 10671259, at *1
(N.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2009) (noting that “the naming of a fictitious party in a civil case filed
originally in district court generally destroys diversity”); McAllister v. Henderson,
698 F. Supp. 865, 868–69 (N.D. Ala. 1988) (collecting authorities for the proposition that
“the presence of fictitious defendants . . . ordinarily destroy diversity jurisdiction in
diversity cases originally filed in federal court”); see also Richardson v. Johnson,
598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that “fictitious-party pleading [generally] is not
permitted in federal court”). 8 Finally, the Complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading
in that all five claims asserted by Plaintiff indiscriminately “repeat and reallege all prior
allegations.” (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 33, 47, 57, 67; id. ¶ 77 (misnumbered as ¶ 14).) Repleading is
required to cure this multitude of pleading errors.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1)

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(2)

On or before August 8, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that
properly establishes the grounds for the Court’s exercise of subject matter
jurisdiction.

In contrast, for purposes of removal, “the citizenship of defendants sued under
fictitious names shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).
8

-5-

(3)

Absent timely compliance with the requirements of this Order, this action
will be CLOSED without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 1, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-6-