Greiner v. De Capri
Decision Date | 10 September 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-2045-MJF |
Citation | 403 F.Supp.3d 1207 |
Parties | Gernot GREINER, Plaintiff, v. Georgina DE CAPRI, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Gernot Greiner, Fort Walton Beach, FL, pro se.
William Lee Ketchersid, Ward & Ketchersid PA, Destin, FL, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gernot Greiner—a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany—married Defendant Georgina De Capri, who is a citizen of the United States. In 2013, to obtain lawful permanent resident status for Greiner, De Capri executed a form promulgated by the U.S. government in which she promised to support Greiner financially. After their divorce in 2018, Greiner initiated this action to enforce De Capri's promise. De Capri moved to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, her motion to dismiss must be denied.1
For purposes of a motion to dismiss this court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and it is in that light that the facts are set forth below. On February 19, 2010, De Capri and Greiner were married in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.2 Shortly after their wedding, Greiner departed for his native Germany while De Capri remained in Florida. For approximately five years of their marriage, Greiner and De Capri lived apart and visited each other only briefly. In 2013, De Capri made efforts to obtain lawful permanent resident status for Greiner.
The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits an alien who is likely to become a public charge from becoming a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A) (). Aliens who would be inadmissible for this reason, however, may become admissible if a sponsor executes an affidavit promising to provide financial support to the intending immigrant. Erler v. Erler , 824 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, federal law requires that a person who sponsors certain aliens for admission into the United States "execute an affidavit of support." 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(a), (b) ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii).
The required affidavit is a form promulgated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security that awards immigration benefits. The affidavit of support is known as "USCIS Form I-864." Once executed, the affidavit "becomes a contract between the sponsor and the United States Government for the benefit of the sponsored immigrant ...." Erler , 824 F.3d at 1175 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(d) ).
On January 18, 2013, in an effort to obtain lawful permanent resident status for Greiner, De Capri executed a USCIS Form I-864. In this Form—pursuant to the requirements of federal law—De Capri was informed of her obligations and agreed that:
(Doc. 7-2). In 2013, the United States government granted Greiner lawful permanent resident status.
From November 2015 to January 2017, Greiner and De Capri resided together in Florida, but in January 2017, De Capri filed for divorce in a Florida court. On March 7, 2017, Greiner filed a counter-petition in which he asserted a counterclaim for "breach of contract" based on the promises De Capri made in the Form I-864. On June 1, 2018, the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida, entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage. Without discussion, the court did not award Greiner any relief based on the Form I-864.
On August 27, 2018, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1183a, Greiner initiated this action to enforce his rights under the Form I-864. Greiner alleges that he has no income and lives "far below the poverty line." Greiner, therefore, seeks an award of the financial support De Capri purportedly owes him under the Form I-864, including the financial support due in 2016 to 2018, plus interest and costs.
De Capri moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), insofar as the res judicata doctrine purportedly bars Greiner's claim.
De Capri argues that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they possess only the power authorized by Congress or the Constitution. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 552, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2616-17, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ; Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Congress may "give, withhold or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion, provided it be not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution." Kline v. Burke Constr. Co. , 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S. Ct. 79, 82, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922). The validity of a federal court's order depends upon that court having subject-matter jurisdiction. Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 701, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 2103, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Absent a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction from Congress, a court "is powerless to act." Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ; Wernick v. Mathews , 524 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1975) ( ). Ex parte McCardle , 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868).
Article III of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to give federal courts jurisdiction over "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The Supreme Court has broadly construed the "arising under" language of Article III to extend "to all cases in which a federal question is ‘an ingredient’ of the action." Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson , 478 U.S. 804, 807, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 3232, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) ). The main purpose of federal-question jurisdiction is "the preservation of the constitution and laws of the United States, so far as they can be preserved by judicial authority ...." Ames v. Kansas , 111 U.S. 449, 470-71, 4 S. Ct. 437, 447, 28 L.Ed. 482 (1884) ); see also Kansas v. Nebraska , 574 U.S. 445, –––– n.5, 135 S. Ct. 1042, 1053 n.5, 191 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015) ( ).
In bestowing general federal-question jurisdiction on federal courts, Congress authorized United States district courts to exercise jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although this statute uses the same "arising under" language as Article III, the Supreme Court has held that section 1331 confers less jurisdiction on the federal courts than the Constitution permits. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria , 461 U.S. 480, 494, 103 S. Ct. 1962, 1971-72, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983) () ; Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co. , 358 U.S. 354, 379, 79 S. Ct. 468, 484, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959) ( ). "Jurisdiction of the lower federal courts" therefore "is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction." Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 701, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 2104, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). The Supreme Court has noted that it has yet to "frame a single, precise definition for determining which cases fall within, and which cases fall outside, the original jurisdiction of the district courts." Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Calif. , 463 U.S. 1, 8, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 2845-46, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).
To determine whether it enjoys federal-question jurisdiction over an action, a court first must look at the subject matter of the "well-pleaded complaint." Id. ; 463 U.S. at 9, 103 S. Ct. at 2846 ; Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S. Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ( ). Federal-question jurisdiction exists "when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
...summary judgment-then the element is satisfied. Anything pending on the periphery of the action is subsumed into the final ruling. In Greiner v. De Capri, for example, husband filed a counterclaim in a divorce proceeding asserting a claim for breach of contract against his wife. 403 F.Supp.......
-
Fukita v. Gist
...subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See, e.g., Greiner v. De Capri, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1218 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (holding that Court possessed federal question jurisdiction over claim to enforce the Affidavit of Support); Liu ......
-
Newberry Square Fla. Laundromat, LLC v. Jim's Coin Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
...lawsuit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata ...." Id. at 938 (underscoring in original); see also Greiner v. De Capri , 403 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1225 (N.D. Fla. 2019) ("The doctrine of res judicata ... is not applicable where the claims in the two cases concern different periods of ......
-
Klement v. Kofsman
... ... representing a continuance of the same course of ... conduct." Greiner v. De Capri, 403 F.Supp.3d ... 1207, 1225 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting Storey v. Cello ... Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370, 383 (2d Cir ... ...