Thomas v. Aigen

• Decision Date: 06 December 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: 1:17-CV-0023-VEH
• Parties: T'NELL THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS REED AIGEN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

T'NELL THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS REED AIGEN, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 1:17-CV-0023-VEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

December 6, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs T'Nell Thomas and Clarence Joseph initiated this personal injury action on January 5, 2017, against Defendants Douglas Reed Aigen ("Mr. Aigen") and Hi Mountain Trucking, Inc. ("Hi Mountain"). (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint (doc. 48) (the "Leave Motion") filed on December 1, 2017, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹

In their Leave Motion, Plaintiffs seek to add 3 new defendants to this litigation: Hi American Transportation, Inc. ("Hi American"), Dublin Logistics, Inc. ("Dublin"), and Qualitas Insurance Company ("Qualitas"). (Doc. 48 at 1 ¶ 3). Plaintiffs also seekto assert a declaratory judgment count relating to insurance coverage. (Doc. 48 at 2 ¶ 5). Mr. Aigen and Hi Mountain do not oppose Plaintiffs' Leave Motion. (Doc. 48 at 1 ¶ 1).

Attached to the Leave Motion is Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint. (Doc. 48-1). Count One is a negligence claim asserted against Mr. Aigen, Hi Mountain, Hi American, and Dublin. (Doc. 48-1 at 4-5 ¶¶ 20-24). Count Two is a wantonness claim asserted against this same set of parties. (Id. at 5-7 ¶¶ 25-29). Count Three is a negligent and/or wanton hiring, training, and entrustment claim asserted against Hi Mountain, Hi American, and Dublin. (Id. at 7-8 ¶¶ 30-33). Finally, Count Four is a claim filed against Mr. Aigen, Hi Mountain, and Qualitas pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act (the "Act"), 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), regarding insurance coverage for punitive damages. (Doc. 48-1 at 8-10 ¶¶ 34-39).

For those reasons explained below, the Leave Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs' right to refile their motion, propose a new second amended complaint, and otherwise address the Court's jurisdictional/discretionary concerns as set out below.

II. Standards

A. General Principles Governing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Unlike state courts, federal tribunals are bodies of limited jurisdiction, meaningthat the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction over the claims asserted by the plaintiff must be present at the time the complaint is filed and must be obvious on the face of the complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). The law is clear that Plaintiffs, the parties seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction in this case, have the burden to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over each claim. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135 (1936) ("They are conditions which must be met by the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor .... [and a]s he is seeking relief subject to this supervision, it follows that he must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court.").

Further, "a federal court has an independent obligation to review its authority to hear a case before it proceeds to the merits." Mirage Resorts, Inc. v. Quiet Nacelle Corp., 206 F.3d 1398, 1400-01 (11th Cir. 2000). Consequently, the Court cannot ignore jurisdictional concerns even if the parties have none.

Relatedly, the parties can neither manufacture the existence nor waive a want of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18, 71 S. Ct. 534, 542, 95 L. Ed. 702 (1951) ("The jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation or by prior action or consent of the parties."); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 398, 95 S. Ct. 553,556-57, 42 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1975) ("While the parties may be permitted to waive nonjurisdictional defects, they may not by stipulation invoke the judicial power of the United States in litigation which does not present an actual 'case or controversy,' and . . . we feel obliged to address the question of mootness [or ripeness] before reaching the merits of appellant's claim.") (citation omitted); Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1000 (11th Cir. 1982) ("The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim involves the court's competency to consider a given type of case[,] and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties.") (footnote omitted).

B. Ripeness

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that the doctrine of ripeness-one subset of Article III's framework for confirming the presence of a constitutionally-sound case or controversy-involves both constitutional and prudential considerations:

When determining if a claim is ripe for judicial review, we consider both constitutional and prudential concerns. In some circumstances, although a claim may satisfy constitutional requirements, prudential concerns "counsel judicial restraint." See Digital, 121 F.3d at 589 (quoting Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 931, 940 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Our inquiry focuses on whether the claim presented is "of sufficient concreteness to evidence a ripeness for review." Id. Strict application of the ripeness doctrine prevents federal courts from rendering impermissible advisory opinions and wasting resources through review of potential or abstract disputes. See id.

Our ripeness inquiry requires a two part "determination of (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Id. (citing Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 1515-16, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1967)[, abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S. Ct. 980, 984, 51 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1977)]; Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). . . .

We have also recognized that the ripeness doctrine . . . protects courts from abusing their role within the government and engaging in speculative decision-making . . . .

Nat'l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1335, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005).

Further, if a claim is not ripe for review, the Eleventh Circuit has clarified that:

[T]he dismissal . . . [is one] without prejudice. Because the general-access claim was not ripe for review, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. See Digital Properties, Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 591 (11th Cir. 1997) ("The determination of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.'" (citing Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.7 (11th Cir. 1989))). Thus, the district court could not have adjudicated the merits of the general-access claim or dismissed that claim with prejudice. See Crotwell v. Hockman-Lewis Ltd., 734 F.2d 767, 769 (11th Cir. 1984) (changing a dismissal "with prejudice" to a dismissal "without prejudice" on the basis that "the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action" and hence "had no power to render a judgment on the merits").

Georgia Advocacy Office, Inc. v. Camp, 172 F.3d 1294, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs maintain that "[t]his Court has original jurisdiction over this actionunder the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs." (Doc. 48-1 at 2-3 ¶ 7).² "Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed amount, in this case $75,000." Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

A. Plaintiffs' Personal Injury Counts

The Court first turns to a jurisdictional analysis of Plaintiffs' personal injury counts. The Court perceives no problems with the citizenship allegations made by Plaintiffs. (Doc. 48-1 at 1-2 ¶¶ 1-7).

However, the amount-in-controversy allegation is flawed because Plaintiffs do not clarify whether the claims of any individual plaintiff exceed the $75,000 threshold. Instead, Plaintiffs state generally that "[t]he amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75.000.00, exclusive of interest and costs." (Doc. 48-1 at 3 ¶ 7). Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement does not allow the claims of multiple plaintiffs to be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional threshold, see Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 301, 94 S. Ct. 505, 512, 38 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1973), superseded bystatute on other grounds as stated in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 566-67, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2625, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005), and the claims of at least one of the individual plaintiffs must exceed the amount-in-controversy threshold for the Court to assert diversity jurisdiction. See Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 559, 125 S. Ct. at 2620 (holding that if the claims of a single plaintiff meet the jurisdictional threshold, the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs' claims).

Additionally, to the extent that the personal injury claims of one of the individual plaintiffs do potentially fall below the jurisdictional threshold to support diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint fails to properly invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367-the federal statute for supplemental jurisdiction-to permit the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims that could not otherwise be brought originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ("[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.").

Thus, Plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations...