Alfonso v. Res. Ctrs., LLC

• Decision Date: 18 September 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:13-cv-411-Oc-10PRL
• Parties: OSVALDO ALFONSO, Plaintiff, v. RESOURCE CENTERS, LLC, JONATHAN SCOTT BAUR, and MARGARET ADCOCK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

OSVALDO ALFONSO, Plaintiff, v. RESOURCE CENTERS, LLC,JONATHAN SCOTT BAUR, and MARGARET ADCOCK, Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-411-Oc-10PRL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

September 18, 2014

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff Osvaldo Alfonso, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint entitled "Statement of Claims Demand for Payment" against Defendants Resource Centers, LLC, Jonathan Scott Baur, and Margaret Adcock (Doc. 1). Mr. Alfonso filed an Amended Complaint against these Defendants on December 5, 2013 (Doc. 10). It is not clear from either pleading, but it appears that Mr. Alfonso is claiming that the Defendants unlawfully withheld portions of his pension benefits.

The case is now before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. 15), and the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Transfer and Dismiss or Alternatively, Request for Status Hearing (Doc. 23). Mr. Osvaldo has filed an untimely response to both motions (Doc. 24). Upon dueconsideration, the Court finds that this case shall be dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Background Facts and Procedural History

Mr. Alfonso's original Complaint (Doc. 1) is both spare in its allegations and confusing in its legal theories. Mr. Alfonso states that he is a "fully vested participant of the "Sunrise General Employees' Retirement Fund," and that he is claiming his vested accrued benefits, plus interest, federal and state penalties, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Alfonso also mentions a state court case in Broward County, Case No. CACE 11-011587(09), which involved at least Defendant Margaret Adcock. Mr. Alfonso alleges that he voluntarily dismissed that case on February 13, 2012. In addition to these allegations, Mr. Alfonso attached to his Complaint, without explanation, a few documents that appear to relate to his pension account, as well as citations to the Fourteenth Amendment, various federal statutes, and several state and federal cases. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-10).

On the same date that he filed his Complaint, Mr. Alfonso also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). On November 25, 2013, the Magistrate Judge deferred ruling on the motion, and directed Mr. Alfonso to file an amended complaint on or before December 9, 2013 (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge found that even liberally construing Mr. Alfonso's allegations, his Complaint failed to state a claim uponwhich relief may be granted. The Magistrate Judge directed Mr. Alfonso that if he chose to file an amended complaint, he

must clearly state the legal theory or theories upon which he seeks relief and explain how each defendant is responsible. In doing so, Plaintiff should include specific allegations as to how each of the defendants allegedly violated his rights and the specific nature of the violations. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff should not in any way refer to the original complaint. The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint, which thereafter will be disregarded. . . .

(Doc. 7, p. 3). The Magistrate Judge also directed Mr. Alfonso to refrain from effecting service of any amended pleadings until instructed to do so. (Id.).

On December 5, 2013, Mr. Alfonso filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), along with an amended affidavit of indigency (Doc. 11). The Amended Complaint consists of 66 pages; however 63 pages are copies of the entire text of 26 U.S.C. § 401, Fla. Stat. §§ 175.361 and 185.37, and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), as well as a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739, 124 S. Ct. 2230 (2004). (Doc. 10, pp. 4-66).

The remainder of the Amended Complaint consists of a few vague allegations. First, Mr. Alfonso alleges that "I am fully vested and my accrued benefits are being withheld without my consent. The plan administrator failed to fully comply with the regulatory requirements contained in 26 U.S.C. § 401." (Doc. 10, p. 2). Next, he alleges that he has been discriminated against in violation of the ADEA because "[t]he plan administrator and my former employer the City of Sunrise discriminated againstme by unlawfully withholding my protected benefits because of not attaining their required age." (Id. Mr. Alfonso alleges that the discrimination occurred on May 4, 2004, that he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 5, 2013, and that he received a Notice of Right to Sue letter on August 14, 2013. (Id., pp. 2-3).

On December 9, 2013, Mr. Alfonso filed a document entitled "Motion to Clarify and Complete Initial Complaint" (Doc. 12). The document is not a motion, but rather consists of copies of documents that appear to relate to his pension account, as well as a copy of his original complaint (Id.). On December 13, 2013, Mr. Alfonso filed another supplement to his Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), consisting of a copy of his August 5, 2013 charge filed with the EEOC, and the EEOC's August 14, 2013 notice of right to sue letter. The notice of right to sue letter states that the EEOC closed Mr. Alfonso's case because "Your charge is not timely filed with the EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discrimination to file your charge." (Doc. 13, p. 1).¹

On December 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge again deferred ruling on Mr. Alfonso's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and gave Mr. Alfonso one final opportunity to file an affidavit of indigency (Doc. 14). That same day, the Defendants filed their motion to transfer venue and motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 15).

Mr. Alfonso filed his amended affidavit on January 7, 2014 (Doc. 16), and on January 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 17). In that Order, the Magistrate Judge held that Mr. Alfonso was raising two claims in his Amended Complaint - a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056, 1132, ("ERISA") and the ADEA (Id.). Return of service was executed on all three Defendants on March 4, 2014 (Docs. 20-22), and on March 25, 2014, the Defendants filed their renewed motion to transfer venue and to dismiss (Doc. 23). Mr. Alfonso filed a response to the Defendants' motions on June 10, 2014 (Doc. 24), and the Defendants, with leave of Court, filed a reply on July 3, 2014 (Doc. 27).

Discussion

The Defendants argue that venue is not proper in this Court as all of the Defendants reside in Palm Beach County (Docs. 20-22), and all of the events that form the basis of Mr. Alfonso's claims took place in Sunrise, Florida, which is located in Broward County. The Defendants therefore ask that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Florida. Once the case is transferred, the Defendants further askthat this case be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response, Mr. Alfonso attempts to argue the merits of his claims that the Defendants have unlawfully withheld his fully vested pension benefits, and argues that if this case is transferred or dismissed "it would just make this more difficult to resolve." (Doc. 24). He does not dispute any of the other arguments in either of the Defendants' motions concerning venue or the lack of legal support for his claims.

The Court need not consider the Defendants' motions concerning venue any further because the Court has sua sponte reviewed Mr. Alfonso's Amended Complaint and finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, the case must dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking."); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (same); Guevara v. Republic of Peru, 468 F.3d 1289, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) ("If the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, 'the court's sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.'") (quoting Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 2014 WL 4249831 at * 3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2014) ("[B]efore the Court determines whether venue is proper, it must first determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.").

A review of the case readily shows that the only basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because all of the Defendants and the Plaintiff reside in Florida. See Docs. 1, 10, 16, 20-22. And the Court finds that each of Mr. Alfonso's purported federal claims are plainly unsubstantial, devoid of any merit, and utterly frivolous. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1378-79 (1974) (The Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion."). See also Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) ("[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of the complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.").

Under the most liberal of readings, see Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008), Mr. Alfonso's Amended Complaint asserts three legal bases for his...