Weller v. Navigator Marine, Inc., 84-3125
| Decision Date | 03 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3125,84-3125 |
| Citation | 737 F.2d 1547 |
| Parties | Carl E. WELLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVIGATOR MARINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
A.J. Musial, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
James R. Betts, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HILL, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Navigator Marine, Inc. (Navigator), defendant in the district court, appeals to this court from an order entering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, Carl E. Weller. Weller filed this suit in the district court, requesting a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of an option to purchase real property that Weller entered into with Michael T. Brown. Navigator claims to have obtained the option to purchase from an individual named Dewey, who obtained it from Brown. Weller named Max W. Corzilius and Michael J. Martini in addition to Navigator as defendants in the district court. Weller has contracted to sell to Corzilius and Martini the property subject to the option claimed by Navigator. In entering summary judgment for Weller, the district court concluded that Navigator's option has expired and that Navigator's attempt to exercise it is therefore without effect. On appeal, Navigator contends that the district court committed error in denying Navigator's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Finding Navigator's contention to be meritorious, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with directions that the action be dismissed.
Weller asserts jurisdiction in this case under the diversity of citizenship provision, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. For diversity purposes, Navigator is a citizen of the State of Florida; Corzilius is also a citizen of the State of Florida. Navigator filed a motion in the district court requesting the court to realign the parties so that Corzilius and Martini would be plaintiffs, contending their "ultimate interests" in the outcome of the action to be the same of that of Weller. See generally Wright, Miller & Cooper, 13 Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 3607. Upon realignment, complete diversity would not exist because Corzilius and Navigator are both citizens of the State of Florida. Thus, Navigator requested that the district court dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. First National Bank at Winter Park, 351 F.2d 519 (5th Cir.1965) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larios v. Perdue
...has applied the substantial controversy test in adjudicating a realignment motion in a diversity case. See Weller v. Navigator Marine, Inc., 737 F.2d 1547, 1548 (11th Cir.1984) ("In determining whether the district court properly denied motion for realignment and dismissal, we must `determi......
-
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Jefferson
...so, even where the parties' interests were in opposition outside of the issues raised in the subject action. Weller v. Navigator Marine, Inc., 737 F.2d 1547, 1548 (11th Cir.1984) ; see also Dev. Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156 (3d Cir.1995) (“ ‘[W]here party desig......
-
Gabriel v. Life Options Int'l, Inc.
...the same situation." Id. at 1511. Several courts within this Circuit have addressed realignment of parties. See Well v. Navigator Marine, Inc., 737 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1984) (owner of second option to purchase property filed suit for declaratory judgment against first option holder and ass......
-
US Fidelity & Guar. v. Algernon-Blair, Inc.
...opposing parties in a lawsuit is "whether there is an actual or substantial controversy" between them. Weller v. Navigator Marine Inc., 737 F.2d 1547, 1548 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (quoting Indemnity Insurance Co. v. First National Bank, 351 F.2d 519, 522 (5th Cir.1965)). "We look to th......