Gliha v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 3

ORDER: This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and thereafter CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/25/2014. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOHN C. GLIHA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-2059-T-33AEP

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August
22, 2014, John C. Gliha initiated this declaratory action
against Bank of America, N.A.; Fulton County, Georgia; Tom
Campbell; The Lily Group; Joan Leblanc; The Lily Group LLC;
Lefkoff, Rubin, Gleason & Russo, P.C.; Craig B. Lefkoff; Adam
S. Russo; Philip L. Rubin; Alexandra K. Kraus; Paul J.
Morochnik; Weissmann Zucker Eusster Morochnik, P.C.; David
Weissman;

James

McKay;

Fulton

County

Superior

Court

of

Georgia; John Does 1-10; and the State of Georgia (See Doc.
# 1). Upon review of the Complaint, the Court determines that
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
Discussion
“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
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Construing Gliha’s Complaint liberally
due to his pro se status, the Court reaches the inescapable
conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.
In his Complaint, Gliha argues that this Court has
jurisdiction as “the relief sought by [Gliha arises] under
the Federal Declaratory Relief Act and the subject matter of

2

this [C]omplaint involves the unlawful taking of federal
benefits that are protected under the Social Security Act.”
(Doc. # 1 at 1). However, a mere reference to federal law is
not enough to establish federal question jurisdiction. 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. See Franchise
Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S.
Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1991).
The Complaint contains a disorderly mass of information,
making it difficult for this Court to decipher the claims
Gliha is asserting against Defendants. However, a careful
review of the Complaint demonstrates that the relief sought
stems from Gliha’s disagreement with a state court judgment
entered

against

him

and

the

subsequent

garnishment

proceedings carried out to enforce that judgment.
The federal district courts do not sit in an appellate
capacity

to

review

state

court

decisions.

If

Gliha

is

dissatisfied with a state court decision, the appropriate
forum for review is the state appellate court. This Court has
no power to review a state court decision. See Sitton v.
United States, 413 F.2d 1386, 1389 (5th Cir. 1969)(“The
jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts of the United

3

States is strictly original. A federal district court has no
original jurisdiction to reverse or modify the judgment of a
state court. Federal courts have no authority to act as an
appellate

arm

of

the

state

courts.”);

Harper

v.

Chase

Manhattan Bank, 138 F. App’x 130 (11th Cir. 2005)(“Under the
Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, it is well-settled that
a

federal

district

court

lacks

jurisdiction

to

review,

reverse, or invalidate a final state court decision.”). As
Gliha appears to disagree with the ruling of a state court
judge, the appropriate remedy would be an appeal in the state
court system, not in this Court.
In the event Gliha argues, in the alternative, that this
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court finds that Gliha has not met
his burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. In
order to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction, Gliha
must demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship and that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332. To demonstrate complete diversity, Gliha must establish
that his citizenship is diverse from the citizenship of every
Defendant. As explained in Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A.
v.

Lama,

633

F.3d

1330,

1342

n.12

(11th

Cir.

2011),

"citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be

4

alleged . . . to establish diversity for a natural person."
Furthermore, “[t]o sufficiently allege the citizenships of .
. . unincorporated business entities, a party must list the
citizenships of all the members of the limited liability
company. . . .” See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH
Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004).
Upon

review

of

the

Complaint,

Gliha

has

failed

to

definitively establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. As
an initial matter, Gliha did not allege the citizenship of
all parties to this action; specifically Defendants David
Weismann
alleged

and
his

Tom

Campbell.

residence

–

Furthermore,

Florida

-

not

Gliha
his

has

only

citizenship.

Nonetheless, even assuming Gliha is a citizen of Florida,
Gliha admits that “Joan Leblanc d/b/a The Lily Group a/k/a
The Lily Group LLC and the Lily Group LLC may or may not be
a resident of the State of Florida.” (Doc. # 1 at 12).
Therefore, complete diversity does not exist.
Furthermore,

the

Court

finds

that

Gliha

has

not

established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Throughout the Complaint, Gliha indicates that “The plaintiff
had a legally protected interest in the specific amount of
money that was levied upon by the respondent, approximately
$13,000, but the total amount of the claim is approximately

5

$42,000 and the defendants are continuing to make efforts to
take more of the plaintiff’s property and rights to property.”
(See Doc. # 1). Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
Having determined that the Court lacks jurisdiction, the
Court dismisses this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

This

case

is

dismissed

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.
(2)

The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions
and thereafter CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

25th day of August, 2014.

Copies: All parties of record

6