Reilly et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 11

ORDER: This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint by January 22, 2013, failing which the Court will direct the clerk to close the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/14/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOSEPH REILLY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2604-T-33EAJ

LIBERTY MUTUAL
COMPANY,

FIRE

INSURANCE

Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This insurance coverage dispute is before the Court sua
sponte.

For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the

complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and with
leave to amend by January 22, 2013, if jurisdiction can
properly be alleged.
Discussion
The inherent problem with Plaintiff’s complaint is that
it fails to allege facts which would bring his claim within
the jurisdictional authority of this Court.

See Fed R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(1) (providing that “[a] pleading that states a claim
for relief must contain: a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . .”)(emphasis added).
Indeed, Plaintiff’s three-page complaint (Doc. # 1), filed on
November 16, 2012, does not contain any allegations upon which
a finding of federal question or diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction could be predicated. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
Likewise, Defendant’s counterclaim, filed on December 17,
2012, is devoid of jurisdictional allegations.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction [and]
possess

only

that

power

authorized

by

Constitution

and

statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). “[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond
its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court
must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case,
and

should

itself

raise

the

question

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

“[O]nce a court determines that there

has been no [jurisdictional] grant that covers a particular
case, the court’s sole remaining act is to dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co.,
228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).
Finding no basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction,
the Court dismisses the complaint and counterclaim without
prejudice.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or

before January 22, 2013.
Accordingly, it is
-2-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is granted leave to

amend the complaint by January 22, 2013, failing which the
Court will direct the clerk to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th
day of January 2013.

Copies:

All Counsel and Parties of Record

-3-