Greiner v. De Capri

Decision Date10 September 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 3:18-cv-2045-MJF
Citation403 F.Supp.3d 1207
Parties Gernot GREINER, Plaintiff, v. Georgina DE CAPRI, Defendant.
CourtU.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

Michael J. Frank, United States Magistrate Judge

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

I. Background

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) ("Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."). 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:

she was sponsoring Greiner for an immigration benefit; • she would "assume certain specific obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act and other Federal Laws;"
she would provide Greiner "any support necessary to maintain him" "at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his" household size;
• if she did "not provide sufficient support" for Greiner he "may sue" her for the support; and
• divorce would "not terminate" her support obligations.

(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.

II. Discussion
A. Federal-Question Jurisdiction

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) (noting that absent jurisdiction a court is "powerless to consider the merits" of a case). "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." 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) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of United States , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 823, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824) ). 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) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia , 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 391, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) ); see also Kansas v. Nebraska , 574 U.S. 445, –––– n.5, 135 S. Ct. 1042, 1053 n.5, 191 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015) (recognizing federal judicial authority to give effect to and remedy violations of federal law).

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) ("Although the language of § 1331 parallels that of the ‘arising under’ clause of Article III, this Court never has held that statutory ‘arising under’ jurisdiction is identical to Article III ‘arising under’ jurisdiction. Quite the contrary is true."); Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co. , 358 U.S. 354, 379, 79 S. Ct. 468, 484, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959) (noting the reluctance of the Supreme Court "to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts through a broad reading of jurisdictional statutes"). "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) (observing that "a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon" federal law). 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
5 cases
  • Bennett v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 10 Febrero 2022
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 28 Enero 2021
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 8 Junio 2020
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT