Mesia v. Florida Agr. and Mechanical University, Case No. 6:08-cv-2070-Orl-DAB.
| Decision Date | 16 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:08-cv-2070-Orl-DAB. |
| Citation | 605 F.Supp.2d 1230 |
| Parties | Jean-Pierre MESIA, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Austin N. Aaronson, Aaronson Austin, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Plaintiff.
Daniel E. Traver, Michael D. Porter, Richard E. Mitchell, Grayrobinson, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendant.
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
-----------------------------------------------
MOTION: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. No. 15)
FILED: February 17, 2009
-----------------------------------------------
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion
is GRANTED
===============================================
MOTION: MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
(Doc. No. 17)
FILED: February 19, 2009
------------------------------------------------
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion
is DENIED as moot
------------------------------------------------
Defendant, a college of law chartered by the State of Florida, moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Petition for Pure Bill of Discovery (Doc. No. 1), contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 23), and the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. As the Court finds no cause of action within its limited jurisdiction, the motion to dismiss is granted.
It is axiomatic that district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, are powerless to hear a matter where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 974-75 (11th Cir.2005) () (citing to Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999)). A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1248 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005). If a court "determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Here, Defendant asserts that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Verified Petition for a Pure Bill of Discovery, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, citing Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). A defendant bringing a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), may assert a "facial attack" to jurisdiction whereupon the court will look to the complaint to determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged subject matter jurisdiction. Irwin v. Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL 497650, 1 (S.D.Fla.2009), citing Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528-29 (11th Cir.1990). When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all of the plaintiffs allegations as true in determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief could be granted. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, 338 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.2003). The complaint may be dismissed if the facts as plead do not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1968-69, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ().
Applied here, Plaintiff commenced this action via the filing of a Petition purporting to seek a bill of discovery. Notably, Plaintiff cites no authority under either state or federal law for such relief and the Petition does not purport to set forth the basis for this Court's jurisdiction, as required by Rule 8(a)(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (). Thus, on the face of the pleading, it is due to be dismissed. While dismissal on this technical ground (failure to plead a basis for jurisdiction) would normally be without prejudice, Defendant also asserts a factual attack on the cause of action itself, asserting that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, as a matter of law.
In his response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff clarifies his cause of action as being an equitable action, under state law. Florida recognizes such an action:
A pure bill of discovery is an equitable remedy which lies "to obtain the disclosure of facts within the defendant's knowledge, or deeds or writings or other things in his custody, in aid of the prosecution or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court." First Nat'l Bank v. Dade-Broward Co., 171 So. 510 (Fla.1936). The purpose of a pure bill is to identify "the proper parties against whom and the proper legal theories under which to subsequently sue for relief," Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889 (S.D.Fla.1988).
Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. American Plywood Ass'n, 1994 WL 463527, 1 (S.D.Fla.1994). The existence of this remedy under state law does not, of course, establish subject matter jurisdiction over this action in federal court. As it is a state law cause of action, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) is not apparent, and Plaintiff has not pled any facts which would establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Owen Equip. and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978) (). No other basis of jurisdiction is pled nor is any other basis evident.
Plaintiff represents that he has filed this action in order to "confirm his suspicions that he may have been the subject of discriminatory treatment and a violation of due process in the denial of [his] petition for readmission" to the school.1 Plaintiff argues that this Court has jurisdiction "over the ultimate form of relief sought," if it appears that Petitioner's suspicions of discriminatory conduct are "born out by discovery." Even assuming, for purposes of this motion, the truth of Plaintiffs suspicions, the existence of a possible cause of action to be brought at some time in the future does not establish subject matter jurisdiction over the existing Petition for discovery. An action for a bill of discovery is separate and distinct from any subsequent action for relief based on the discovery, and, as such, Plaintiff must establish a basis for jurisdiction over the Petition. Stoller v. Nissan Motor Corp., 934 F.Supp. 423 (S.D.Fla.1996) (); accord Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889 (S.D.Fla.1988). The fact that a possible future cause of action might be within this Court's jurisdiction does not change that conclusion. As the Sunbeam court noted:
The Defendants further argue for removal by claiming that if one of the ultimate objects of the state law discovery proceeding is to facilitate the prosecution of an action over which a Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction, then the Federal Court has jurisdiction over the discovery proceeding itself. The argument is not well taken. Florida has defined this proceeding as distinct from the matters as to which the Plaintiff seeks discovery. Upon answering the Bill, the proceeding terminates. A subsequent suit for relief is an entirely separate proceeding.
In an effort to avoid this conclusion, Plaintiff relies heavily on Perez v. Citibank, 328 F.Supp.2d 1374 (S.D.Fla.2004),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spector v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc., Case No: 2:17-cv-650-FtM-99CM
...the prosecution or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court." Mesia v. Fla. Agr. and Mechanical Univ. School of Law, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1232 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Dade-Broward Co., 171 So. 510, 510-11 (Fla. 1937)). As this is a sta......
-
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., Case No. 19-cv-20665-GAYLES
...or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court.'") (quoting Mesia v. Fla. Agr. & Mechanical Univ. School of Law, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1232 (M.D. Fla. 2009)). "Florida courts treat bills of discovery as the first step in a civil action . . . ." Id. (citing Spec......
-
Brownstone Assocs., P.A. v. U.S. Postal Serv.
...from federal law—the potential involvement of a federal law is insufficient. See Mesia v. Fla. Agric. & Mech. Univ. School of Law, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1232-33 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (dismissing claim for bill of discovery); Carr v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., No. 10-MC-60917, 2010 WL 2220336, a......
-
MSP Recovery Claims 1, LLC v. Travelers Cas. Co.
...v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., No. 10-MC-60917, 2010 WL 2220336, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2009) and Mesia v. Fla. Agr. & Mech. Univ. Sch. of Law, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1232 (M.D. Fla. 2009)). "When a plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is the monetary......