Payne v. Diaz et al
Filing
5
ORDER. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and close this case. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/28/2025. (ADH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RAYON PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:25-cv-106-JSS-DCI
JERMAINE CARLOS DIAZ, ERIC
LARUE, THE LARUE FIRM, PLLC,
ANDREW IRVIN, PAUL IRVIN, and
IRVIN & IRVIN PLLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Rayon Payne filed this action for damages and injunctive relief against
Defendants Jermaine Carlos Diaz, Eric LaRue, The LaRue Firm, PLLC, Andrew
Irvin, Paul Irvin, and Irvin & Irvin PLLC. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff invokes this court’s
jurisdiction based on its diversity jurisdiction and asserts six causes of action against
Defendants: Count One – abuse of process, Count Two – civil conspiracy, Count
Three – per se defamation, Count Four – fraud upon the court, Count Five – tortious
interference with business relationship, and Count Six – negligent supervision against
the corporate entity Defendants only. (Id. ¶¶ 19–55.) Plaintiff asserts that jurisdiction
is proper in this court because “there is complete diversity of citizenship between the
parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000, exclusive of interests and
costs.” (Id. ¶ 7.)
“The district courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction,
defined (within constitutional bounds) by federal statute.” Badgerow v. Walters, 596
U.S. 1, 7 (2022) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377,
(1994)). As a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must “scrupulously confine [its]
own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined.” Underwriters at
Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Healy
v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 (1934)). A district court’s jurisdiction based on diversity
exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity
between all plaintiffs and all defendants in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see OstingSchwinn, 613 F.3d at 1085 (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267
(1806)). The party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction “has the burden of
establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of
federal jurisdiction.” Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d at 1085–86 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(1); McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002)). Thus, the
complaint’s allegations must establish diversity jurisdiction, including the citizenship
of each party, so that the court is satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state
as any defendant. See Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir.
1998). If a court lacks jurisdiction, its “only remaining function is to answer that [it]
lack[s] jurisdiction and dismiss the cause.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th
1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 970 (11th Cir.
2019)).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of
establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of
federal jurisdiction. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d at 1085–86. A review of the Complaint
shows that Plaintiff alleges he “is a resident of Orlando, Florida.”
(Id. ¶ 12.)
Defendants Eric LaRue, Andrew Irvin, and Paul Irvin are attorneys licensed to
practice in Florida. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16–17.) The law firm Defendants are located in Florida
and are owned and operated by Defendants Eric LaRue and Andrew and Paul Irvin,
respectively.
(Id. ¶¶ 15, 18.)
Florida’s Division of Corporations corporation
registration record for Defendant The LaRue Firm further indicates the lack of
diversity jurisdiction between the parties. 1 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a
limited liability company is deemed “a citizen of any state of which a member of the
company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374
F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). The LaRue Firm’s registered agent is Defendant
Eric LaRue. 2 He is the sole member and manager of a law firm, and he resides in
Winter Park, Florida. 3 Therefore, this matter is due to be dismissed for lack of subject
The court takes judicial notice of the law firm Defendant’s corporation registration
information. Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 177 F. App’x 52, 53 (11th Cir. 2006)
(explaining that a district court may take judicial notice of public records).
2
Detail by Entity Name of The LaRue Firm, PLLC, Division of Corporations, an official State of
Florida
Website,
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=En
tityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=LARUEFIRM%20L160001438760&
aggregateId=flal-l16000143876-91900cad-7cf9-4e54-a674b44e18f6274a&searchTerm=The%20Larue%20Firm&listNameOrder=LARUEFIRM%20L
160001438760. (last visited Jan. 27, 2025).
3
Id.
1
matter jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity between Plaintiff and all
Defendants in this action.
Accordingly:
1. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and
deadlines and close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Rayon Payne
8815 Conroy Windermere Rd.
Suite 208
Orlando, FL 32835
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?