Jimenez v. Henry et al
Filing
10
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 8 is denied. See Order for details.Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/6/2014. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ADEL JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-1714-T-33TGW
TRACY MARTINELL HENRY and
ANDERSON/PINCARD LAW GROUP,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Adel Jimenez’s pro se Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint, filed on July 28, 2014. (Doc. # 8). For the reasons
stated below, the Motion is denied.
Discussion
Jimenez initiated this action on July 15, 2014, by filing
his Complaint against Tracy Martinell Henry, Esq. and the
Anderson/Pincard Law Group on July 15, 2014. (Doc. # 1). In
his Complaint, Jimenez explains that he retained Defendants
to represent him in an employment discrimination case in this
Court, but Defendants did not achieve a favorable outcome for
him. (Id. at 2). At this juncture, Jimenez sues Defendants
for legal malpractice and other claims.
1
Specifically, his
Complaint
enumerates
fourteen
counts
against
Defendants,
including “Legal Malpractice, Breach of Contract, Filing
Defective Documents, Active Negligence, Defective Process,
Misrepresentation, Failure to Prosecute, [and] Obstruction of
Justice.” (Doc. # 1).
On
July
21,
2014,
after
liberally
construing
the
Complaint, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. (Doc. # 6).
Because Jimenez alleged
that both Defendants are located in Clearwater, Florida, and
that he himself lives in Tampa, Florida, the Court found that
it did not have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (Id.).1 Furthermore, as Jimenez did not present any
claims arising under the laws of the United States, the Court
found that it did not have federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Id.).
In his present Motion, Jimenez seeks leave to amend his
Complaint. (Doc. # 8). Jimenez asserts that this Court has
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because Defendants violated his Seventh Amendment right to a
jury trial. (Id. at 2). As the Eleventh Circuit stated in
1 In
Jimenez’s present Motion, he concedes that the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not present in
this case. (Doc. # 8 at ¶ 4).
2
Freeman v. Rice, 399 F. App’x 540, 544 (11th Cir. 2010), “The
dismissal of a complaint by a district court terminates the
plaintiff’s
right
to
amend
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure 15(a).” Although such a motion may be appropriate
after dismissal of a case in certain limited circumstances,
the Court finds that this case does not present such a
circumstance.
In Nalls v. Countrywide Home Servs., LLC, 279 F. App’x
824, 824 (11th Cir. 2008), the court affirmed a district
court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In that case, the
plaintiff
contended
that
federal
question
jurisdiction
existed pursuant to the Seventh Amendment, the Supremacy
Clause, and Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, but
the Court found that federal question jurisdiction did not
exist because the plaintiff only alleged state law claims,
none of the constitutional provisions plaintiff mentioned
“conferred subject matter jurisdiction in and of themselves,”
and the plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a violation of
any of the constitutional provisions. See id.
Similarly, the factual allegations Jimenez describes in
his Complaint and in his Motion to Amend only concern state
law claims and do not support a claim that Defendants violated
3
Jimenez’s federal rights.
Jiminez’s mere reference to the
Seventh Amendment does not confer subject matter jurisdiction
upon this Court. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983).
The
Court
notes
that
Jiminez
previously
pursued
a
discrimination action against his former employer under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Florida Civil Rights
Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. See (Case No. 8:11cv-1676-T-33EAJ).
Jiminez’s
counsel,
Defendants
in
the
present action, moved to withdraw from representing Jiminez
due
to
ethical
concerns
that
arose
during
their
representation of Jiminez. (Case No. 8:11-cv-1676-T-33EAJ,
Doc. 37).
The Court denied the Motion to Withdraw because it
lacked a certificate of service. (Case No. 8:11-cv-1676-T33EAJ, Doc. # 39).
The Court authorized Jiminez to file a
Third Amended Complaint in that action, but such complaint
was never filed, and the Court accordingly closed the case.
(Case No. 8:11-cv-1676-T-33EAJ, Doc. # 40).
The type of claims Jiminez raised in his prior employment
discrimination action are generally recognized as triable by
a jury; the dismissal of those claims by this Court, however,
does not give rise to a Seventh Amendment claim against
Jiminez’s former counsel in the present case.
4
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?