Catano v. Capuano et al
Filing
166
ORDER denying 151 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 12/19/2019. See attached document for full details. (js02)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-20223-Civ-TORRES
ZORAIDA CATANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAULINE CAPUANO and
TRAVIS SCHIRATO,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on Zoraida Catano’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an
extension of time to complete discovery.
[D.E. 151].
Pauline Capuano’s
(“Defendant”) responded to the motion on December 11, 2019 [D.E. 163] to which
Plaintiff replied on December 18, 2019. [D.E. 165]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is
now ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply,
relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with a second set of
interrogatories and a second request for production. The purpose of these discovery
requests was to gather information on Defendant’s domicile so that Plaintiff could
provide a meaningful response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to respond to
1
Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff therefore seeks an extension of the discovery
period so that the parties can attend the next available discovery hearing and
compel Defendant to provide a response. If an extension is not granted, Plaintiff
suggests that she will unable to respond to the pending motion to dismiss because it
is unclear where Defendant is domiciled.
We agree with Plaintiff that, generally speaking, a plaintiff should be
allowed to conduct discovery prior to a dismissal of a case for a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 731 (11th
Cir. 1982) (“We hold that the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction was premature. Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to develop facts
sufficient to support a determination on the issue of jurisdiction.”); Blanco v.
Carigulf Lines, 632 F.2d 656, 658 (5th Cir. 1980) (“We merely hold that the rules
entitle a plaintiff to elicit material facts regarding jurisdiction through discovery
before a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”).
But, as the Court stated in the Order denying Defendant’s motion to stay
[D.E. 153], the Court may retain jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367. When Plaintiff originally filed this case in federal court on January 18, 2018,
Plaintiff relied on a federal question and a theory that Defendant violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). On July 11, 2019,
the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the federal question over which the Court had its original
jurisdiction. [D.E. 129].
2
After giving Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, Plaintiff included only
state claims. The prior state law claims were before the Court as supplemental
claims under the federal RICO statute. The question is then whether the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the amended pleading given
the absence of a federal question. The parties go back and forth on whether there is
complete diversity between the parties and whether discovery is needed to resolve
that question.1 But, the dispute between the parties misses the forest for the trees
because diversity is not the only alternative for the Court to retain jurisdiction.
The Court may also inquire into whether there is supplemental jurisdiction
basis to support Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court’s inquiry is two-fold. “First,
the Court must decide whether it has the power to hear the state law claims.
Second, if the Court does have the power to hear the state claims, the Court must
decide whether, in its discretion, it will retain jurisdiction over the state claims.”
Baggett v. First Nat. Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 1997)
(citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725–26 (1966)).
The question of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is measured at the
time the complaint was filed. See In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1980). When
Plaintiff filed her initial complaint, she included a federal question and her state
law claims were a proper exercise of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28
It is clear that there is no diversity of citizenship if both parties are foreign
citizens because “[a]lienage jurisdiction prohibits an alien from suiting another
alien in federal court unless the suit includes U.S. citizens as plaintiffs and
defendants.” Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1340 (11th
Cir. 2011).
1
3
U.S.C. § 1367(a) (1994); see also Palmer v. Hospital Authority of Randolph County,
22 F. 3d 1559, 1567 (11th Cir. 1994).
After the Court dismissed the federal claim, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. While this amended complaint only contained state law claims, “[t]he
dismissal of [Plaintiff’s] underlying federal question claim [did] not deprive the
Court of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Baggett,
117 F.3d at 1352 (citing Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1568; Edwards v. Okaloosa County, 5
F.3d 1431, 1433–35 (11th Cir. 1993)). “Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court
has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse
state law claims, where the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss the case.” Baggett, 117 F.3d at
1352 (citing Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1567-68).
Here, § 1367(c) applies because the Court “has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction;” namely, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant
under the federal RICO statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “While § 1367(c) permits a
court to dismiss any state law claims where the court has dismissed all the claims
over which it had original jurisdiction, the court also can consider other factors.”
Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1353. The Court can consider, for example, judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity on the question of whether the Court should
continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Smith v. City of Tallahassee,
2019 WL 5205969, at *4 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019) (“The court should consider
‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’ in exercising its supplemental
4
jurisdiction.”) (quoting Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1288 (11th
Cir. 2002)).
The Eleventh Circuit has advised that the resolution of only state law claims
should generally be decided in state court. See, e.g., Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1353
(“State courts, not federal courts, should be the final arbiters of state law.”) (citing
Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 954 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1992)). This is
typically the case when a district court dismisses a federal claim prior to trial. See,
e.g., Eubanks v. Gerwen, 40 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 1994) (remanding case to district
court to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims where court had granted summary
judgment on plaintiff's federal law claims); Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484
U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“When federal law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit
in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline
the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.”); United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (dismissal of state law claims strongly
encouraged when federal law claims are dismissed prior to trial).
But, while a district should usually remand a case with the dismissal of a
federal question, this is not a mandatory rule. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 at
350 (“[W]e have made clear that this statement does not establish a mandatory rule
to be applied inflexibly in all cases.”) (citing Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 403–
405 (1970)). “The statement simply recognizes that in the usual case in which all
federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered
under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness,
5
and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7. Therefore, although
a district court ultimately has discretion to retain a case, it should consider these
factors carefully in making that determination.
In this case, the Court has considered the factors articulated above and finds
that the better course is to retain jurisdiction. The parties have litigated this case
for approximately two years and the Court is well aware of the claims presented.
Indeed, in granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, the Court recommended some of the state law claims that Plaintiff
should have pursued in lieu of a federal RICO claim. This means that, although the
federal claim is no longer present, the state law claims are inextricably tied to the
same underlying theory of liability and are not so novel as to justify dismissal.
See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 743 (11th Cir.
2006) (“Generally, state tort claims are not considered novel or complex.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery period is
DENIED because – irrespective of whether the parties are diverse – the Court will
retain, for now, jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff
shall file her response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days
from the date of this Order.2
The Court notes the new argument in Defendant’s motion that this amended
complaint triggers the probate exception. That issue has not been considered, but
will have to be adjudicated in response to the pending motion to dismiss.
2
6
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of
December, 2019.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?