Rural International Bank Limited v. Key Financial Investment Group LLC et al
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MERRIAM'S MOTION TO DISMISSgranting in part and denying in part 64 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 8/7/2017. (tm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-22280-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
RURAL INTERNATIONAL BANK
LIMITED, (In Liquidation), a
corporation organized under the laws
of the Commonwealth of the
KEY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP
LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability
company, MONIQUE MERRIAM, an
individual, GEOFINANCE LIMITED, a
Delaware corporation and BRUNO JUNQUEIRA,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT MERRIAM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER is before me on Defendant Monique Merriam’s (“Merriam”)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Motion”) (ECF No. 64).
Plaintiff, Rural International Bank Limited (“RIBL”), filed its Response to Merriam’s
Motion (ECF No. 81) on July 3, 2017, to which Merriam filed her Reply in Support of Her
Motion (ECF No. 82) on July 6, 2017, along with over one hundred pages of exhibits. RIBL
then filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 84) to address the new
factual allegations raised in Merriam’s reply, recognizing the need for the Court to address
fully the matter of subject matter jurisdiction. I granted RIBL leave to file its sur-reply (ECF
No. 88), which it filed on July 18, 2017 (ECF No. 92). The matter is now fully briefed and
ripe for adjudication. For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part.
This case arises out of loans made by RIBL, a Bahamian corporation currently in
liquidation, to Defendant Key Financial Investment Group, LLC, (“Key Financial”), a
dissolved, single-member limited liability company based out of Florida. Compl., ¶¶ 2–4,
10–23. RIBL alleges that Key Financial failed to pay the loans when they became due, and
that all of Key Financial’s pledged collateral was worthless. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. On the date of
the last loan transaction, the sole member and manager of Key Financial1 sold his entire
ownership interest in Key Financial to Defendant Geofinance, a Delaware corporation. Id.
at ¶¶ 5, 25. Merriam was the sole shareholder and director of Geofinance, and became the
manager of Key Financial upon the former manager selling his interest. Id. at ¶¶ 27–28.
While still owing approximately $13,700,000 in principal to RIBL on the aforementioned
loans, Key Financial filed articles of dissolution. Id. at ¶ 30. RIBL asserts numerous counts
against Key Financial, Geofinance, and Merriam, including breach of contract, fraud,
failure to comply with Florida statutes when dissolving a limited liability corporation, alter
ego claims, and conspiracy to defraud. See id. at ¶¶ 38–132.
In Merriam’s Motion, she challenges RIBL’s assertion in its Complaint that she is a
resident of Washington, D.C.; she contends she is domiciled in Brazil and is a “stateless”
United States citizen for diversity purposes, and therefore not diverse from RIBL. There is
no dispute that Merriam has not resided in Washington, D.C. since 1997; however, she and
her husband, a Brazilian citizen and diplomat, still maintain a property there, which they
have rented out since 2001. See Merriam’s Suppl. Decl., ECF No. 82-1, ¶¶ 31–32. They do
not claim any homestead exemption for this property. Id., ¶ 31. In January 2000, Merriam’s
husband “abandoned” his lawful permanent resident status in the United States. Ex. E, ECF
No. 82-1. In January 2008, she and her husband purchased a house in Brazil, which is
registered in Brazil as their residence and domicile. Ex. D, ECF No. 82-5. Merriam became
a naturalized Brazilian citizen on May 27, 2011. Ex. B, ECF No. 82-3. She is not currently
registered to vote in Washington, D.C., see Ex. G, ECF No. 82-8, but is registered to vote in
Brazil, see Ex. F, ECF No. 82-7. In her Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) tax filings for the
The sole member and manager of Key Financial was Defendant Bruno Junquiera
(“Junqueira”). Junqueira was voluntarily dismissed by RIBL from this action on June 26,
2017. See ECF Nos. 76, 80.
past few years, she stated she did not maintain a home in the U.S. while living abroad, that
her residence is in Brazil, and that she has not submitted a statement to the Brazilian
authorities, where she claims bona fide residence, that she is not a resident of that country.
Ex. 1I, ECF No. 82-10. She also lists a Maryland address and an Algerian address for her
employer. Id. However, on one RIBL corporate account document for Geofinance,
Merriam listed her address as Warren Place in Washington, D.C. In a separate RIBL
corporate account document for Key Financial, Merriam put down an address in Brasilia,
Merriam argues that because she is a “stateless” citizen, her presence in this case
destroys complete diversity and therefore the entire case should be dismissed, as she is an
indispensible party. RIBL, on the other hand, contends that Merriam’s domicile was, and
remains, Washington, D.C., satisfying the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Should
diversity not be satisfied, RIBL argues that Merriam is not a necessary party and the case
can remain alive with the remaining two Defendants.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
As a court of limited jurisdiction, a federal district court must inquire into its subject
matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279–80 (11th Cir.
2001). When diversity of citizenship is the basis for federal jurisdiction, diversity must exist
at the time the complaint is filed. Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1203
(M.D. Fla. 1991), aff'd sub nom. Las Vistas Villas v. Petersen, 13 F.3d 409 (11th Cir. 1994).
“[T]he plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face
dismissal.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989). At issue here is
“alienage jurisdiction” concerning an action between citizens of a State and citizens or
subjects of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).2 The plaintiff bears the burden of proving
diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505
F.3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007); Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330,
In RIBL’s Response to Merriam’s Motion, it admits it incorrectly cited to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1) as the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction. See ECF No. 81, p. 3; ECF No. 1,
¶ 8. However, defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1653, and this provision is to be read liberally. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633
F.3d 1330, 1342 n.12 (11th Cir. 2011). I find RIBL adequately alleged diversity jurisdiction
on this record.
1340 (11th Cir. 2011). After citizenship is established, the next relevant inquiry is one of
domicile. “[O]nce a plaintiff shows a former domicile, the burden shifts to the defendant to
present evidence that the domicile changed.” King, 505 F.3d at 1171 ( (internal quotations
omitted). “For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection
with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.” Miss. Band of Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). “U.S. citizens domiciled abroad are neither
‘citizens of a State’ under § 1332(a) nor ‘citizens or subjects of a foreign state’ and therefore
are not proper parties to a diversity action in federal court.” Molinos, 633 F.3d at 1341 (citing
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 828–29 (1989)).
As a dual-citizen of the U.S. and Brazil, there is no question that Merriam is a U.S.
citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d
1330, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n individual who is a dual citizen of the United States and
another nation is only a citizen of the United States for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction
under § 1332(a).”). The main issue, then, is the question of Merriam’s domicile. Plaintiff has
properly alleged that Merriam’s former domicile was Washington, D.C. The burden then
shifts to Merriam to show that her domicile has changed. King, 505 F.3d at 1171. One way
to satisfy the burden of showing her domicile changed is by showing that she resided
elsewhere at the time the complaint was filed. See id. As stated above, it is undisputed that
Merriam has not resided in Washington, D.C. since 1997. Merriam and her husband
currently reside in Algeria, where her husband is assigned to the Brazilian Embassy. They
have been there since 2013.
If a defendant shows she resided elsewhere when the complaint was filed, “the
plaintiff must come forward with evidence showing that the relocation was for some
particular purpose, expected to be only of a temporary nature, or in the exercise of some
particular profession, office, or calling.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1171
(11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). RIBL argues that Washington, D.C.
continues to be Merriam’s domicile for several reasons: her different residences since leaving
Washington, D.C. have been transitory in nature because her husband is a diplomat, she
still maintains a house in Washington, D.C., and she used the address of that house on an
RIBL account document for Geofinance.
Both Parties cite to three cases to support their contentions as to Merriam’s domicile,
King, Molinos, and Las Vistas Villas. In King, the issue of diversity arose between a deceased
plaintiff, Jessica King (represented by a personal representative of her estate), and a foreign
aircraft company. The aircraft company attempted to argue that because King, a U.S.
citizen, was living in Denmark at the time of her death, Denmark was her domicile and she
was therefore a “stateless” citizen, which destroyed diversity jurisdiction. However, the
court found that King’s domicile was California. Although she had not resided in California
for eleven years prior to her death, King visited California regularly, her parents testified
that she planned to return to California after her tenure abroad, and her various residences
in foreign countries over the years were all in pursuit of her career goals. King, 505 F.3d at
1172. In Las Vistas Villas, the defendant was a third year law student in Minnesota who had
dual citizenship in the U.S. and Costa Rica. Although he had voted in a U.S. presidential
election and registered with the U.S. Selective Service, the Costa-Rican born defendant
returned to Costa Rica for five years in between college and law school, he owned property
in Costa Rica but not the U.S., and he demonstrated no intent to remain in the U.S. after
law school. Las Vistas Villas, 778 F.Supp. at 1204–05. The court found that his domicile was
in Costa Rica. Id. at 1205. Lastly, in Molinos, the issue of diversity had to do with the
domicile of a dual-citizen of the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The defendant lived in
Florida at the time the lawsuit was filed, he had moved to Florida a few years prior to the
lawsuit after retiring, and he stated in his deposition testimony that he considered himself a
“permanent resident” of Florida. Molinos, 633 F.3d at 1342–43. With nothing more than his
word to contradict the evidence, the court found that he was indeed domiciled in Florida.
Id. at 1343.
The instant case presents facts just different enough to distinguish the above cases.
Here, Merriam has not lived in the U.S. for twenty years, almost double the eleven years
discussed in King. Additionally, she owns property with her husband in both Brazil and the
U.S., unlike any of the cases cited above. The U.S. property is rented and Merriam does not
claim a homestead tax exemption on it. Additionally, the property she and her husband
own in Brazil was purchased after she left Washington, D.C., and while she was living in
Brazil for a six-year period. The property is registered in Brazil as her residence. Merriam’s
different residences outside of the U.S. may be transitory in nature, but they are due to her
husband’s job as a Brazilian diplomat, not a U.S. diplomat, and do not indicate an intent to
return to the U.S. once his postings are concluded. Further, during the time since Merriam
has lived in the U.S., she lived in Brazil for almost six years, acquired Brazilian citizenship,3
and her husband has abandoned his legal permanent resident status in the U.S. She no
longer votes in Washington, D.C., but does vote in Brazil. While Geofinance, an American
corporation, is her employer, she works remotely in Algeria. Merriam’s statements of her
intent to return to Brazil when her husband retires may be self-serving; however, they are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. All of these facts taken together confirm a
change in domicile to Brazil. The fact that Merriam listed a Washington, D.C. residential
address—at which she has not lived for twenty years—on one form with RIBL is not
enough to overcome the rest of the evidence. Merriam is a “stateless” U.S. citizen,
destroying complete diversity jurisdiction.
The question then becomes whether to dismiss the entire case or simply dismiss
Merriam. “By now, ‘it is well settled that Rule 21 invests district courts with authority to
allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after judgment has
been rendered.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572–73 (2004)
(quoting Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 832).4 Merriam concedes that if she is dismissed,
diversity jurisdiction is satisfied. However, she argues that she is an indispensible party and
that she and Geofinance have common defenses. Upon further examination of her
arguments, it is clear that the counts to which Merriam claims she is essential are the counts
directed solely at her; the counts asserted against Geofinance and Key Financial are
contractual in nature and arise out of loan documents to which Merriam herself is not a
RIBL argues that Merriam’s Brazilian citizenship is not relevant at all for diversity
purposes; however, RIBL goes slightly too far. It is well settled that “an individual who is a
dual citizen of the United States and another nation is only a citizen of the United States for
the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a).” Molinos, 633 F.3d at 1341. But
citizenship is only the first prong of the test; domicile must also be considered. Obtaining
citizenship in another nation does not negate a party’s U.S. citizenship; however, it could,
and in this case does, show the intent of a party to change domicile.
Both Merriam’s Motion and her reply misstate the holding in Newman-Green, stating that it
requires district courts to exercise its power to dismiss “jurisdictional spoilers” sparingly. As
correctly pointed out by RIBL, the Supreme Court’s caution about dismissing
“jurisdictional spoilers” was specifically directed at appellate courts. Newman-Green, Inc.,
490 U.S. at 837.
party. Additionally, even if she has common defenses with Geofinance, she does not explain
how Geofinance is prohibited from asserting these defenses without Merriam as a codefendant. Merriam makes one last attempt to have the entire lawsuit thrown out by
cautioning against possible inconsistent results arising out of different proceedings. This
concern is not valid, however, because again, the claims against Merriam and the claims
against the corporate entities are wholly different, thus negating any worry about
inconsistent results. Merriam is a nondiverse, dispensable party and is dismissed from the
For the reasons explained above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All claims
against Defendant Monique Merriam are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is
directed to TERMINATE Defendant Monique Merriam from the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this 7th day of August 2017.
Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record
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?