Filed: Jul. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER EMILY C. MARKS , Chief District Judge . Now pending before the court are a motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) filed on November 5, 2018, a motion to amend (Doc. 32) filed on November 20, 2018, and a motion to dismiss without prejudice (Doc. 39), filed on June 28, 2019. I. PROCEDUAL HISTORY Allegheny Casualty Company ("Allegheny") filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no liability to satisfy the final judgments of criminal b
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER EMILY C. MARKS , Chief District Judge . Now pending before the court are a motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) filed on November 5, 2018, a motion to amend (Doc. 32) filed on November 20, 2018, and a motion to dismiss without prejudice (Doc. 39), filed on June 28, 2019. I. PROCEDUAL HISTORY Allegheny Casualty Company ("Allegheny") filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no liability to satisfy the final judgments of criminal ba..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
EMILY C. MARKS, Chief District Judge.
Now pending before the court are a motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) filed on November 5, 2018, a motion to amend (Doc. 32) filed on November 20, 2018, and a motion to dismiss without prejudice (Doc. 39), filed on June 28, 2019.
I. PROCEDUAL HISTORY
Allegheny Casualty Company ("Allegheny") filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no liability to satisfy the final judgments of criminal bail bond forfeitures identified in the complaint. (Doc. 1). Defendant Jamie Neeley Scarbrough ("Scarbrough") moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all of the claims in the complaint have been resolved. (Doc. 27). Allegheny then sought to amend the complaint to identify new final judgments of bail bond forfeitures. (Doc. 32). In response to this Court's order to show cause why the motion to amend ought not be granted, Scarbrough challenged the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint (Doc. 35). Therefore, the Court ordered Allegheny to respond to the subject-matter jurisdiction argument with respect to both the proposed amended and the original complaint. (Doc. 36).
In response to the Court's order, Allegheny filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice, representing that the attorney for Scarbrough did not consent to dismissal, but did not oppose the filing of the motion. (Doc. 39, at p. 2). Counsel for Scarbrough then filed a response stating that Scarbrough does not oppose the motion to dismiss, but does oppose a dismissal without prejudice. (Doc. 40).
II. DISCUSSION
In this case, jurisdictional concerns were raised about Allegheny's attempted amendment of the complaint, but the court also has examined the question of subject-matter jurisdiction over the original complaint because "federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press." Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).
Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code grants federal subject-matter jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. That is the basis for jurisdiction invoked by Allegheny in the original complaint (Doc. 1) and the proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 32-1).
The facts of this case involve Allegheny's allegations that Scarbrough has attempted to execute multiple final judgments of forfeiture of bail bonds against Allegheny even though Allegheny is not a party to those judgments. (Doc. 1 & 32-1). As noted, Allegheny seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no liability to satisfy the final judgments of criminal bail bond forfeitures. The amount in controversy, therefore, is the amount of the forfeited bail bonds. See Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003) ("When a plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is the monetary value of the object of the litigation from the plaintiff's perspective.").
Although given an opportunity to demonstrate that subject-matter jurisdiction exists in this case, Allegheny has instead sought dismissal, and has presented no evidence as to the amount in controversy.1
Documents identifying the bonds and their amounts are attached to the complaint. (Doc. 1).2 Upon review of the documents attached to the complaint, the total amount of the bonds identified equals approximately $40,000, which is far less than $75,000. No other damages are sought in this declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, upon review of the factual allegations of the complaint, and the attachments to that complaint, the court concludes that less than $75,000 is in controversy. There also is no federal question in this case. Therefore, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). ("A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice.").
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 39) is GRANTED to the extent that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 S.Ct. 911 (1945)). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Perez-Priego v. Alachua County Clerk of Court, 148 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1998). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3), the Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment entered by a magistrate judge, but only if the parties consented to the magistrate's jurisdiction. McNab v. J & J Marine, Inc., 240 F.3d 1326, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2001).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885-86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judgment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Under this section, appeals are permitted from the following types of orders:
i. Orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions; However, interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (11th Cir. 1986);
ii. Orders appointing receivers or refusing to wind up receiverships; and
iii. Orders determining the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty cases.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 S.Ct. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964).
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the order or judgment appealed from is entered. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later."
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend or reopen the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time to file an appeal may be reopened if the district court finds, upon motion, that the following conditions are satisfied: the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order within 21 days after entry; the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice, whichever is earlier; and no party would be prejudiced by the reopening.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court lacks jurisdiction, i.e., authority, to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
