Heinrich et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Closing case. (drv) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 14-60659-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
THOMAS HEINRICH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte.
The following motions are currently pending before the Court:
1.

HSBC Bank, as Trustee’s Motion to Stay or Dismiss Pending
Resolution of State Court Action [DE 15].

2.

The Motion to Intervene filed by HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., as
Trustee in Trust for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities
Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-HE3 Asset
Backed Pass-Through Certificates [DE 16].

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Summary Judgment [DE 17].

4.

Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of Default [DE
38].

5.

Petitioners’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Proposed Intervenor HSBC Bank USA N.A. as Trustee’s
Pending Motions [DE 42].

The Court has reviewed these motions, as well as other relevant portions of the
case file, and is otherwise advised in the premises. Upon review, however, the Court
will not rule on the merits of these pending motions, as Plaintiffs’ claims do not invoke

this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the case will be dismissed and the
pending motions denied as moot.
I.

Standard
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. They do not—and indeed may not—

handle any case that a would-be plaintiff may bring. “The statutory and (especially)
constitutional elements of jurisdiction are an essential ingredient of separation and
equilibration of powers, restraining the courts from acting at certain times, and even
restraining them from acting permanently regarding certain subjects.” Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998). The law leaves certain
cases to the state courts.
“In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of
subject matter jurisdiction.” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th
Cir. 1997). They are “(1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Id.; see also Mair v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 13-24265-Civ.,
2014 WL 1328405, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2014).
“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet,
405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir. 2005). It should do so “at the earliest possible stage in the
proceedings.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
Once a federal court determines that it without subject matter jurisdiction, “the court is
powerless to continue.” Bochese, 405 F.3d at 974–75.

2

II.

Plaintiffs’ Claims

The operative pleading in this case is a three-page document entitled “Petition for
Declaration of Non-Debt and Non-Liability” [DE 1], filed March 14, 2014. It names
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC”), as a “respondent.” However, it alleges that Plaintiffs
(styled “Petitioners”) “have [n]ever had a banking or creditor/debtor relationship with
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,” and that Plaintiffs and HSBC agree about this fact. [Id. at 2.]
Instead, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]hird parties however have made claims that debts are
owed to HSBC and have filed and recorded liens” against Plaintiffs’ property. [Id.]
Plaintiffs emphasize that neither they nor “HSBC Bank USA, N.A. [nor] HSBC Bank
USA N.A. Trust Division believe these liens were created by HSBC employees or
agents, and all agree there are no sums due to HSBC” from Plaintiffs. [Id.] Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter a declaratory judgment establishing that Plaintiffs owe no money
to HSBC. This document includes a section entitled “Jurisdiction and Venue” in which
Plaintiffs state that the action is “authorized under the Federal Declaratory Judgments
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201–2202.” [Id. at 1.]
On August 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Supplimental [sic]
Complaint to Add Additional Defendants” [DE 41] (“Supplemental Complaint”), which
purports to add defendants to this suit and substantially changes Plaintiffs’ allegations.
In it, Plaintiffs allege that HSBC and several presumably related corporations1 have
somehow wronged them. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants “[i]n a capacity and
fashion yet to be determined” caused bogus liens to be asserted against Plaintiffs’ real
1

Specifically, Plaintiffs name “HSBC Bank Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings
Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee; [and] Wells Fargo and Company.” [DE 41 at 1.]
3

property “in a manner so as to cloud the titled of said property.” [Id. at 1.] Plaintiffs also
allege that Defendants have somehow used these liens “to obtain monies” from
Plaintiffs, and that Defendants have evaded taxes. [Id. at 1–2.]
This Supplemental Complaint was filed without leave of Court, see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15, and has not been served on any of the additional defendants it names.
Nevertheless, the Court has considered the Supplemental Complaint in determining
whether Plaintiff’s claims may fall within this Court’s jurisdiction.
III.

Discussion

Plaintiffs’ claims, even liberally construed, 2 do not come within the Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. As a threshold matter, “[t]he Declaratory Judgment Act does
not provide an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction.” Mathews Int’l Corp. v.
Biosafe Engineering, LLC, 695 F.3d 1322, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Skelly Oil
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671–72 (1950)); see also Eldeeb v.
Chertoff, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1210 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (same). Instead, “[i]ts remedy
may lie only if the court has jurisdiction from some other source.” Mathews Int’l Corp.,
695 F.3d at 1328 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court therefore turns to other potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction.
It finds them lacking. Other than the Declaratory Judgment Act, Plaintiffs allege no
federal statute that confers jurisdiction over their case upon this Court. Plaintiffs also do
not sue to vindicate a right under federal statute or the United States Constitution.
2

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148
F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, “this leniency does not give a court license
to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in
order to sustain an action.” GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d
1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
4

Finally, even accepting the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition and
Supplemental Complaint as true, they do not establish diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. For this Court to have diversity jurisdiction, the matter in controversy
must exceed $75,000 and be between citizens of different States. Id. Neither of
Plaintiffs’ pleadings “contain[s] any allegations regarding the amount in controversy.”
Mair, 2014 WL 1328405, at *3. And they do not address the citizenship of the Plaintiffs
or any of the Defendants. Because Plaintiffs’ pleadings “fail[] to invoke the jurisdiction
of the court,” they “must be dismissed.” Id.
IV.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Petition [DE 1] is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.
2.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY all pending motions as

MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 24th day of September, 2014.

Copies provided to counsel of record via CM/ECF
and to pro se parties via United States mail.

5