Machat v. Cox Media Group, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Closing Case. Signed by Judge Ursula Ungaro on 10/5/2016. (jt00) 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.: 1:16-cv-24155-UU
STEVEN MACHAT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COX MEDIA GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte.
THE COURT has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully
advised of the premises. Plaintiff filed this action on September 29, 2016. D.E. 1. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Id. However, Plaintiff, who is a Florida resident, sues numerous Florida corporations,
which on its face precludes the Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see, e.g.,
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Diversity jurisdiction
requires complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.”).
Accordingly, on September 30, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why
this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. D.E. 5. On October 5,
2016, Plaintiff responded by arguing that there is federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. §
1331, because Plaintiff is “seek[ing] the right to fully participate in the election process as a
candidate for the U.S. Senate” by participating in “two debates for the office of U.S. Senator

from the state of Florida,” and “[e]lection to the office of U.S. Senator for the state of Florida is
dictated by Article One Section Three of the United States Constitution.” D.E. 8 ¶¶ 3-4. For this
reason, Plaintiff contends that his claims fall within “the purview of the U.S. Constitution and the
constitutional right to become a U.S. Senator.” Id. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff’s arguments have no merit. As an initial matter, Plaintiff brings a claim under
the Declaratory Judgment Act (Count I) and a claim for injunctive relief (Count II). “The
Declaratory Judgment Act does not, of itself, confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts; a suit
brought under the Act must state some independent source of jurisdiction, such as the existence
of diversity or the presentation of a federal question.” Borden v. Katzman, 881 F.2d 1035, 1037
(11th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must therefore demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1035 n. 38
(11th Cir. 2006) (“[F]ederal courts are duty bound to consider their subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte.”).
A. Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “a district court has jurisdiction over any civil case if (1) the
parties are citizens of different States and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255,
1261 (11th Cir. 2000). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity . . . [and] every
plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287.
The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because Plaintiff, who is a Florida resident, alleges claims against a Florida corporation such that
there is not “complete diversity” in this case. Id.; D.E. 1.

B. Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)
28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A claim arises
under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when the plaintiff's well pleaded complaint establishes
that federal law either creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily
depends upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Christman v. Jackson
Hewitt, Inc., 379 F. App’x 956, 958 (11th Cir. 2010).
The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Plaintiff seeks an injunction under the Declaratory Judgment Act against four Defendants
based on Defendants’ decision to exclude Plaintiff from two televised debates. Plaintiff’s claims
do not “arise[] under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” simply because he is
running for political office. See Christman, 379 F. App’x at 958. Because Plaintiff’s claims have
no basis in rights afforded by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, Plaintiff’s
Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys.
R.R., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court not only has the power but also the
obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does
not exist arises.”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida this _5th__ day of October,
2016.
___________________________________
URSULA UNGARO
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies provided: counsel of record