Cadence Bank, N.A. v. 6503 U.S. Highway 301, LLC et al

Filing 250

ORDER: Alami Binani's claims against Morris Esquenazi, 6503 U.S. Highway 301, LLC, Anwar Hassan, Nabil Shihada, and Amanda Shihada are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Anwar Hassan's claims against Morris Esquenazi and Amanda Shihada are di smissed without prejudice as this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This Court declines to retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The Clerk is directed to terminate any previously scheduled deadlines and thereafter CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/30/2015. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CADENCE BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-840-T-33TGW

6503 U.S. HIGHWAY 301, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability
Company, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Final
Pretrial Conference held on January 30, 2015. For the reasons
stated at the hearing, Alami Binani’s claims against Morris
Esquenazi, 6503 U.S. Highway 301, LLC, Anwar Hassan, Nabil
Shihada, and Amanda Shihada are dismissed with prejudice.
Further, Anwar Hassan’s claims against Morris Esquenazi and
Amanda Shihada are dismissed without prejudice as this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
I.

Background
This

instituted

case

began

by

Cadence

as

a

Bank,

commercial
N.A.,

on

foreclosure
two

action

properties

in

Hillsborough County, Florida, owned by 6503 U.S. Highway 301,

LLC. (Doc. # 1). The underlying action with Cadence Bank has
been resolved. (See Doc. # 170).
During the pendency of the litigation with Cadence Bank,
Alami Binani filed his Counter-Claim, Cross-Claim, and ThirdParty Complaint (Doc. # 86), and filed an Amended Cross-Claim
and Third-Party Complaint on February 5, 2014, against 6503
U.S.

Highway

301,

LLC,

Morris

Esquenazi,

Nabil

Shihada,

Amanda Shihada, and Anwar Hassan. (Doc. # 131). Amanda Shihada
and Nabil Shihada filed their Answers (Doc. # 150) on February
27, 2014. 6503 U.S. Highway 301, LLC and Morris Esquenazi
filed their Answers on April 7, 2014 (Doc. # 173), and Anwar
Hassan filed his Answer on April 14, 2014 (Doc. # 174).
Also

on

April

14,

2014,

Anwar

Hassan,

representing

himself pro se, filed his Third-Party Counter-Claims and
Third-Party

Cross-Claims

against

Alami

Binani,

Amanda

Shihada, and Morris Esquenazi, setting forth the following
counts: (1) Declaratory Judgment and (2) Breach of Contract
(Third-Party Beneficiary). (Doc. # 174). Alami Binani filed
his Answer to the Third-Party Counter-Claims on June 27, 2014.
(Doc. # 202). Amanda Shihada filed her Answer on July 1, 2014
(Doc. # 206), and Morris Esquenazi filed his Answer on July
2, 2014 (Doc. # 210).

2

On September 2, 2014, Alami Binani filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Third Party CounterClaims asserted by Anwar Hassan against him. (Doc. # 218). In
response,

Anwar

Hassan

submitted

that

“to

the

extent

necessary and possible, [Hassan] voluntarily dismisses Count
II as it relates to Binani only . . . Hassan consents to
dismissal of Count II as it relates to Binani." (Doc. # 219).
As a result, on September 18, 2014, this Court dismissed Count
II of Anwar Hassan's Third Party Counter-Claims as to Alami
Binani only. (Doc. # 220).
The remaining parties engaged in mediation, on January
29, 2015. (Doc. # 248). According to the mediator’s report,
“[t]he case has been completely settled except as to Mr.
Hassan.”

(Id.).

Furthermore,

on

January

29,

2015,

Alami

Binani filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
as to his claims against Anwar Hassan. (Doc. # 249).
II.

Alami Binani’s Claims
Pursuant to the Mediation Report (Doc. # 248), the Notice

of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 249), and the
statements provided at the Final Pretrial Conference, Alami
Binani’s claims against Morris Esquenazi, 6503 U.S. Highway

3

301, LLC, Anwar Hassan, Nabil Shihada, and Amanda Shihada are
hereby dismissed with prejudice.
III. Anwar Hassan’s Claims
According to the Mediation Report, Anwar Hassan’s claims
against Morris Esquenazi and Amanda Shihada still remain
pending. (See Doc. # 248). “A federal court not only has the
power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into
jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does
not exist arises.”

Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc.,

760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985); Hallandale Prof'l Fire
Fighters Local 2238 v. City of Hallandale, 922 F.2d 756, 759
(11th Cir. 1991) (stating “every federal court operates under
an independent obligation to ensure it is presented with the
kind of concrete controversy upon which its constitutional
grant of authority is based”).
Moreover,

federal

courts

are

courts

of

limited

jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1994). “[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act
beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a
court must zealously [e]nsure 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

4

about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
At

this

time,

the

only

remaining

claims

are

(1)

declaratory judgment and (2) breach of contract (third party
beneficiary) based on Anwar Hassan’s argument that he is
entitled

to

a

broker’s

commission

as

a

result

of

his

procurement of the relevant purchase and sale agreement.
(Doc. # 174).
First,

this

Court

does

not

have

federal

question

jurisdiction over Anwar Hassan’s claims as none of the claims
arise under federal law nor does federal law create the causes
of action. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1991)(finding
that a case “arises under” federal law where federal law
creates the cause of action or where a substantial disputed
issue of federal law is a necessary element of a state law
claim).

Furthermore, it is undisputed that this Court lacks

diversity
Hassan,

jurisdiction

Morris

as

the

remaining

Esquenazi,

and

Amanda

parties

Shihada

-

–

Anwar

are

all

citizens of the state of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Moreover, this Court declines to assert supplemental
jurisdiction over Anwar Hassan’s remaining claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c). The remaining claims raise complex issues

5

of

state

law,

which

include

issues

related

to

the

interpretation of contracts (i.e. the relevant purchase and
sale agreement as well as the separate commission agreement).
(See Doc. # 174).
This

Court

is

cognizant

that

Anwar

Hassan

has

an

available venue – state court – in which he can pursue his
requested relief against Morris Esquenazi and Amanda Shihada.
The statute of limitations has not run on Anwar Hassan’s
contract-based claims, and he still has ample opportunity to
initiate such an action in state court. See Fla. Stat. §
95.11. Having determined that this Court lacks jurisdiction
over

Anwar

Hassan’s

claims,

the

Court

dismisses

Anwar

Hassan’s claims against Morris Esquenazi and Amanda Shihada
without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Alami Binani’s claims against Morris Esquenazi, 6503
U.S. Highway 301, LLC, Anwar Hassan, Nabil Shihada, and
Amanda Shihada are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

(2)

Anwar

Hassan’s

claims

against

Morris

Esquenazi

and

Amanda Shihada are dismissed without prejudice as this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

6

(3)

This Court declines to retain jurisdiction over this
action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

(4)

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

terminate

any

previously

scheduled deadlines and thereafter CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
30th day of January, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

7