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)

Download PDF
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

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?