Joiner v. Gasparilla Island Bridge Auth.

• Decision Date: 20 December 2016
• Docket Number: Case No: 2:16-cv-467-FtM-99CM
• Parties: CAPPY JOINER and SALLY JOINER, Plaintiffs, v. GASPARILLA ISLAND BRIDGE AUTHORITY, an authority created by the Florida Legislature, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

CAPPY JOINER and SALLY JOINER, Plaintiffs, v. GASPARILLA ISLAND BRIDGE AUTHORITY,an authority created by the Florida Legislature, Defendant.

Case No: 2:16-cv-467-FtM-99CM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

December 20, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #2) filed on June 15, 2016, and defendant's Response to Show Cause Order (Doc. #31). For the reasons set forth below, this cause is remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

I.

On June 15, 2016, this case was removed by defendant Gasparilla Island Bridge Authority (defendant or GIBA) based upon federal-question jurisdiction from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Charlotte County.¹ (Doc.#1.) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #2) seeks both injunctive and compensatory relief for an uncompensated taking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 6, 2016, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, citing Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1972), which held that a federal constitutional takings claim under the Fifth Amendment is not ripe until the plaintiff has unsuccessfully pursued a compensation claim in state court proceedings. (Doc. #30.) In response, GIBA states that plaintiffs do not allege that GIBA has taken their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. #31.) Rather, defendant argues that the crux of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is that GIBA violated their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which does not require that plaintiffs first avail themselves of the remedies available in state court.

II.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and "a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction atthe earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking." Univ. S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). "A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction. . . . Any doubts about the propriety of federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008).

Removal jurisdiction exists only where the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action, unless Congress expressly provides otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2000). As the party seeking federal jurisdiction, the burden is upon defendant to establish jurisdiction as of the date of removal. Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). In this case, defendant invoked federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. #1.) A cause of action "arises under" federal law pursuant to § 1331 only when plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.

We have long held that "[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question ispresented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see alsoLouisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).

Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 474-75 (1998). See also Blab T.V. of Mobile, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 182 F.3d 851, 854 (11th Cir. 1999); Whitt v. Sherman Int'l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998); Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir. 1998); Kemp v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 109 F.3d 708, 712-13 (11th Cir. 1997). "In determining the presence of a federal question, this Court looks to the substance, not the labels, of the plaintiff's claims as contained in the factual allegations in the complaint." Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1381 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (citation omitted). The Court's responsibility is to "examine [plaintiff's] cause of action for what it actually is, not for what [plaintiff] would have it be." McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

In reviewing plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege in pertinent part as follows: Defendant GIBA is a special purpose taxing district of the State of Florida, created by Chapter 96-507, Laws of Florida. (Doc. #2, ¶ 1.) The purpose of GIBA is to manage and operate the Gasparilla Island Bridge Causeway, which is the only ingress and egress to and from Gasparilla Island in Charlotte County, Florida. The power granted to GIBA is contained in its enabling legislation, which gave it the power to set bridgetoll rates and collect bridge tolls. (Id.) The enabling legislation also gave GIBA the power to "fix, modify, charge and collect toll rates and user fees from persons for the use of the bridge and causeway system at such levels as the authority deems appropriate. . . ." (Id.) Plaintiffs are residents of the taxing district under the authority of GIBA, and utilize the Gasparilla Island Bridge Causeway.

GIBA offers a toll structure for drivers using the Gasparilla Island Bridge Causeway, which includes a per trip toll or the option of a pre-paid, discounted pass for either a set number of trips or an annual pass of unlimited trips. (Doc. #2, ¶ 2.) Each of the prepaid passes expire 12 months from the purchase date unless the pass holder replenishes the pass prior to the expiration of the 12-month period. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Pursuant to the terms of the prepaid toll structure, any funds left after one year from the date of the last purchase would be "forfeited to GIBA." (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Both of plaintiffs' prepaid toll cards expired with funds left over that were forfeited to GIBA. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-11.) Reactivation requires the individual to purchase another prepaid toll pass. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The toll structure terms are communicated to purchasers on GIBA's toll pass application form, on its website, on the back of the prepaid toll pass cards, and have at times been published in the local newspaper and various local publications. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) GIBA believes that itacquires ownership of the money from anyone who purchases the prepared toll card as of the date the purchaser pays regardless of whether the purchaser ever uses the cards. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The enabling legislation does not specifically limit GIBA's right to unused funds. GIBA has sold "thousands" of the prepaid toll passes since the toll structure's inception in 2012. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Plaintiffs allege that GIBA has exceeded the authority of its enabling legislation as defined in Chapter 96-507, and seeks a declaratory judgment determining the legality of GIBA's prepaid toll structure. (Doc. #2, ¶ 20.) Specifically, plaintiffs request that the Court determine whether GIBA has violated the due process rights of plaintiffs and all other purchasers of the prepaid toll passes under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. (Id. at ¶ 21.) In this regard, plaintiffs state that GIBA did not provide purchasers the opportunity to be heard prior to the taking of their property, which they allege was at the time of purchase. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs additionally allege that GIBA's toll structure and its usage terms has exceeded its powers granted in the enabling legislation and constitutes a taking without due process of law under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. (Id. at ¶21.) Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to enjoin GIBA from selling prepaid toll passes as currently structured and from deactivating any future prepaid toll passesregardless of whether a year has lapsed. (Id. at p. 11.) Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages in the amount equal to the unused funds remaining on the prepaid toll passes at the time of the forfeiture. (Id.)

A liberal reading of the Second Amended Complaint frames the alleged taking of the property right as both procedural and substantive due process violations, as well as a just compensation takings claim. See Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon Cnty., 121 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997) ("As distinguished from a just compensation claim, we stated that a successful due process taking suit, for instance would 'result in an invalidation of the local authority's application of the regulation and, perhaps, actual damages, whereas a just compensation claim is remedied by monetary compensation for the value taken.'") (quoting Eide v. Sarasota Cnty., 908 F.2d 716, 721 (11th Cir. 1990).

III.

A. Procedural Due Process

"Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest." Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). "A § 1983 action alleging a procedural due process clause violation requires proof of three elements: a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; stateaction; and constitutionally inadequate process." Cryder v. Oxendine, 24 F.3d 175, 177 (11th Cir. 1994).

Here, assuming plaintiffs have alleged a constitutionally-protected property interest, their claim still fails for failure to allege constitutionally inadequate process. "Only when the state refuses to provide a process sufficient to remedy the procedural deprivation does a constitutional violation actionable under section 1983 arise." Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F. 3d 1328, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557). In Cotton, the Eleventh Circuit explained that "[i]t is the state's...