Abramson et al v. Express Consolidations, Inc. et al

Filing 3

Final Order of Dismissal without Prejudice.Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 3/14/2008.(bc)

Abramson et al v. Express Consolidations, Inc. et al

Doc. 3

Case 0:08-cv-60350-WJZ

Document 3

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA C A S E NO. 08-60350-CIV-ZLOCH S T E W A R T N. ABRAMSON and PAUL F. WORSHAM, P l ai n ti f fs , vs. E X P R E S S CONSOLIDATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. / T H I S MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

c a r e f u l l y reviewed the Complaint (DE 1) filed herein by Plaintiffs S t e w a r t N. Abramson and Paul F. Worsham and notes that the Court's j u r i s d i c t i o n in this matter is premised upon diversity jurisdiction, p u r s u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. S e c t i o n 1332 provides that where a complaint is founded on d i v e r s i t y of citizenship, a federal court may maintain jurisdiction o v e r the action only "where the matter in controversy exceeds the s u m or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is b e t w e e n (1) citizens of different States." k e ep the federal by courts III, moored to 2 the of The dictates of § 1332 jurisdictional the limits As

p r es c ri b e d

Article

Section

Constitution.

J u s t i c e Stone stated in reference to § 1332 in Healy v. Ratta, 292 U . S . 263, 270 (1934), "[d]ue regard for the rightful independence of s t a t e governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires t h a t they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise l i m i t s which the statute has defined." These dictates stem from the fact that federal courts are c o u r t s of limited jurisdiction. The presumption, in fact, is that

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 0:08-cv-60350-WJZ

Document 3

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 4

a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until the p a rt i es e x is t s. demonstrate that jurisdiction over the subject matter

United States v. Rojas, 429 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir.

2 0 0 5 ) , citing, Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 10 ( 1 79 9 )) . Therefore, the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction Taylor v. Appleton,

m u s t be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.

3 0 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d, § 3602 ( 1 9 8 4 & Supp. 2007). A review of the Complaint (DE 1) filed herein reveals that the r e q u i s i t e diversity of citizenship as to Plaintiffs and Defendants i s not apparent on its face. The Complaint states:

1. Plaintiff PAUL F. WORSHAM is an individual who has m a i n t a i n e d and paid for his residential phone number at h i s home residence at 10903 Deborah Drive, Potomac, MD 2 0 8 5 4 at all times relevant to this suit. 2 . Plaintiff STEWART N. ABRAMSON is an individual who has m a i n t a i n e d and paid for his residential phone numbers at h i s home residence at 522 Glen Arden Drive, Pittsburgh, P A 15208 at all times relevant to this suit. DE 1. The Complaint fails to sufficiently allege Plaintiffs'

c i t i z e n s h i p for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction o v e r the above-styled cause. See Nadler v. Am. Motors Sales Corp.,

7 6 4 F.2d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 1985); Rice v. Office of Servicemembers' G r o u p Life Ins., 260 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 2001). Residency is See 13B

n o t the equivalent of citizenship for diversity purposes.

W r i g h t , Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3611. T h u s , the citizenship of an individual party must be affirmatively

2

Case 0:08-cv-60350-WJZ

Document 3

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 4

a l le g ed .

Id.

Plaintiff's allegation alleges mere residency, and is

t h e r e f o r e insufficient for the Court to exercise subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the instant case. I n dismissing the above-styled cause due to Plaintiffs' failure t o satisfy the requirements of federal jurisdiction, the Court echos t h e recently stated sentiment of the United States Court of Appeals f o r the Seventh Circuit: A r e we being fusspots and nitpickers in trying (so far w i t h limited success) to enforce rules designed to ensure t h a t federal courts do not exceed the limits that the C o n s t i t u t i o n and federal statutes impose on their j u ri s di c ti o n? Does it really matter if federal courts d e c i d e on the merits cases that they are not actually a u t h o r i z e d to decide? The sky will not fall if federal c o u r t s occasionally stray outside the proper bounds. But t h e fact that limits on subject-matter jurisdiction are n o t waivable or forfeitable - that federal courts are r e q u i r e d to police their jurisdiction - imposes a duty of c a r e that we are not at liberty to shirk. And since we a r e not investigative bodies, we need and must assure c o m p l i a n c e with procedures designed to compel parties to f e d e r a l litigation to assist us in keeping within bounds. H e n c e [it is] . . . the responsibility of lawyers who p r a c t i c e in the federal courts, even if only occasionally, t o familiarize themselves with the principles of federal j u ri s di c ti o n. S m o o t v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 678 (7th Cir. 2 0 06 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , after due consideration, it is O R D E R E D AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1 . The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED w i thout prejudice in that the Court lacks subject matter

j u r i s d i c t i o n over the same; and 2 . To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending

3

Case 0:08-cv-60350-WJZ

Document 3

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2008

Page 4 of 4

M o t i o n s be and the same are hereby DENIED as moot. D O NE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward

C o u n t y , Florida, this

14th

day of March, 2008.

WILLIAM J. ZLOCH United States District Judge C o p i e s furnished: A l l Counsel of Record

4