Pearson et al v. Falcon et al
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Closing Case. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/30/2015. (tm) 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. 15-22745-CIV-COOKE
JONATHAN PEARSON and
ALFA SPECIALTY INS. CO.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FELIPE J. MOURIN, BRISEIDA MOURIN,
DAMION R. FALCON, through his parent
and legal guardian MONIQUE FALCON,
MONIQUE FALCON, JOANNA NGUYEN,
IDA DRAPPEAU, KATELYN CUMMINGS,
and MYKEN CORP., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before me upon a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiffs filed a
Complaint for Declaratory Relief on July 23, 2015. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Complaint
and attached exhibits, the record, relevant legal authorities, and for the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief is dismissed without prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Jonathan Pearson (“Mr. Pearson”) and Alfa Specialty Insurance Company
(“Alfa”) bring this action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28
U.S.C. § 1331. The controversy alleged in the Complaint stems from an alleged theft of Mr.
Pearson’s identity. More specifically, on October 6, 2014, an automobile accident involving
a 2005 Suzuki Forenza and a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria occurred. At the time of the
accident, the Suzuki Forenza was driven by Defendant Damian R. Falcon, with Defendants
Monique Falcon, Joanna Nguyen, Katelyn Cummings, and Ida Drappeau as passengers,
and the Ford Crown Victoria was owned by Defendant Briseida Mourin and driven by
Defendant Felipe J. Mourin. As a result of that accident, Defendants Damian Falcon,
Monique Falcon, Joanna Nguyen, and Ida Drappeau asserted claims as uninsured motorists
under Plaintiff Mr. Pearson’s insurance policy, alleging that he was the owner of the Suzuki
Forenza.
Mr. Pearson, however, disputes Defendants allegations that he owns the Suzuki
Forenza and asserts that his identity was stolen. He alleges that he never purchased a 2003
Suzuki Forenza and that any evidence to the contrary, including the bill of sale for the
vehicle with his name, address, and signature on it, is false.
Therefore, he seeks a
declaration of his rights with regard to all Defendants’ potential claims against him and his
insurer. More specifically, he seeks a declaration that: (1) he is not the owner of and was
not driving the Suzuki Forenza when it was involved in an accident; (2) he is not liable to
the Defendants for the accident; (3) the claims asserted by Defendants against Plaintiffs are
not covered claims; (4) Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this
proceeding.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court must sua sponte inquire into subject matter jurisdiction and may
dismiss a case whenever it may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “[O]nce a federal court determines that it is
without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. A court “shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A court shall also assert jurisdiction over civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and is between citizens of different
states or foreign countries. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Dismissal for failure to meet the amount in controversy is proper only where the
pleadings make it clear “to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the
jurisdictional amount.” Bradley v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 224 Fed. App'x 893, 895 (11th Cir.
2007). Where the sufficiency of the amount in controversy is challenged, the party seeking
to invoke jurisdiction bears the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that
the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets the jurisdictional minimum.” Horton v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 352-53 (1961). Conclusory allegations are insufficient.
Id. Rather, the party must set forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion. Id.;
see also Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002).
2
III.
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, I note that “[t]he operation of the Declaratory Judgment
Act is procedural only.” Household Bank v. JFS Group, 320 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937)). Thus, a plaintiff may not
bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court alleging subject matter jurisdiction
under § 1332 merely by citing the Act itself.
Here, Plaintiffs’ allege that “this is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2201” and that “[t]here is full diversity of citizenship between the parties since the
Plaintiffs and all Defendants are residents of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”1 While
Plaintiffs sufficiently plead complete diversity of citizenship between all Plaintiffs and
Defendants, Plaintiffs fail to plead that the amount in controversy in this case meets the
$75,000 minimum necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiffs cite to “Defendants claims, including but not limited to claims for alleged
losses…” but fail to specify exactly what claims Defendants have lodged against Plaintiffs
and for what amounts. Plaintiffs attach as Exhibit A to their Complaint Mr. Pearson’s auto
insurance coverage limits, but this information is insufficient to determine that Plaintiffs
have met the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement. Simply put, Plaintiffs never
specifically reference any amount in controversy in their Complaint. Thus, given the lack of
any allegations in the Complaint or attached exhibits addressing the amount in controversy
in this action, Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, as Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to sufficiently allege this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction over the matter, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory Relief (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint on or before August 14, 2015,
properly alleging a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.
2.
The Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this matter in the interim.
1
While Plaintiffs cite to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that appears to be an error as Plaintiffs appear to be proceeding
under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, I will construe all references to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 to mean 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of July 2015.
Copies furnished to:
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?