Moreno et al v. Youngquist Brothers, Inc. et al, No. 2:2009cv00566 - Document 32 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 28 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 29 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for failure to allege subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 14 days. The failure to do so will result in the closing of this case without further notice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/24/2010. (RKR)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MARIA ELENA MORENO, personal representative of the Estate of Abel G. Dominguez, MARIA ANA LOPEZ, in her capacity as guardian of minor children A.A.D. and A.D., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2:09-cv-566-FtM-29DNF YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC., a Florida corporation, BREITBURN FLORIDA, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Youngquist Brothers, Inc. s Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of SubjectMatter Jurisdiction (Doc. #28) filed on May 25, 2010. Also before the Court is Defendant Breitburn Florida LLC s Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. #29) filed on May 28, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a Response to both Motions (Doc. #31) on June 23, 2010. Because the Complaint fails to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction, and the facts alleged actually establish a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the motions will be granted. Plaintiffs Maria Elena Moreno (plaintiff or Moreno), in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Abel G. Dominguez (Dominguez), and Maria Ana Lopez (Lopez), in her capacity as Guardian to the minor children of Dominguez, filed an eightcount complaint (Doc. #1) against defendants Youngquist Brothers, Inc. (Youngquist), and Breitburn Florida, LLC. (Breitburn), setting forth a variety of state law claims. Plaintiffs premise federal jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 9.) Federal jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires complete diversity and that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806), we have read the statutory formulation between . . . citizens of different States to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). This means that the citizenship of every plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of every defendant. In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). Plaintiffs have not only failed to plead complete diversity of citizenship, the Complaint establishes the lack of complete diversity of citizenship. -2- The citizenship of a personal representative is deemed to be the same State as the decedent, and the citizenship of a guardian is deemed to be the same state as the infant. 1332(c)(2). 28 U.S.C. § In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Pleading residency is not the equivalent of pleading domicile. Corporate Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2009); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A person s domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 2002)(internal quotations and citations omitted). (11th Cir. The Complaint fails to allege the citizenship of either the decedent or the children, although it does indicate the residences were Florida (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 1, 5-6) as an apparent basis for Florida citizenship. The Complaint also fails to fully allege the citizenship of the corporate defendant. The Complaint alleges that Youngquist Brothers, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing business in Lee and Collier Counties, Florida (id. at ¶ 7), which makes it a citizen of Florida. A corporation is also a citizen of the state where its principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The Complaint fails to allege the principal place of business, -3- although this omission is fairly academic in light of the fact that the corporation as pled is a citizen of Florida. Finally, the Complaint also fails to allege the citizenship of Breitburn Florida, LLC. A limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is located. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, LLC., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004). The Complaint contains no allegations as to the members of the LLC or their citizenship. Because both plaintiffs and at least one defendant citizens of Florida, there is not complete diversity. there is not original federal jurisdiction, there supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. can are Because be no Exxon Mobile, 545 U.S. at 554. It may be possible to amend the complaint to properly assert jurisdiction over at least one defendant, if plaintiffs desire to proceed in federal court as to that single defendant. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 the Court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant Youngquist Brothers, Inc. s Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. #28) is GRANTED. -4- 2. Defendant Breitburn Florida, LLC s Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. #29) is GRANTED. 3. The Court DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Opinion and Order. Failure to do so will result in closing of the file without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this June, 2010. Copies: Counsel of record -5- 24th day of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.