Edmund C. Scarborough vs Carotex Construction, Inc.
420 F. App'x 870
11th Cir.2011Background
- Scarborough filed a declaratory action in district court, later amended and supplemented, asserting federal and state claims related to payment and performance bonds on the SVAM-Carotex project.
- Plaintiff pled only diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; no federal question jurisdiction was alleged in the complaint.
- SVAM allegedly funded and directed work; claimants provided labor/materials at SVAM’s request, with Scarborough as surety.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no complete diversity and no federal question.
- Scarborough argued federal question jurisdiction under the Miller Act because the project could be a federal public work and bonds implicate Miller Act rights; he did not amend the complaint to add Miller Act or public-work claims after dismissal.
- The court later affirmed dismissal, stating the Amended Complaint did not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction, and Scarborough did not seek leave to amend to cure deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint asserts federal question jurisdiction under the Miller Act | Scarborough argues the project is a Miller Act public work. | Scarborough failed to plead federal question or Miller Act parameters. | No federal question jurisdiction; complaint insufficient. |
| Whether the project qualifies as a Miller Act public work | Not explicitly addressed; relies on potential federal involvement. | Project not shown as public work; government not a party. | Court declines addressing public-work determination; not necessary to decide. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | Purports to raise federal questions; should amend to cure defects. | Diversity absent and no federal-question basis; dismissal proper. | Dismissal without prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (federal rights must be alleged in complaint to arise under federal law)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (basis for federal-question jurisdiction includes cited federal law or Constitution in complaint)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co., 607 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (Rule 8(a)(1) sufficiency; references to federal law to create jurisdiction; otherwise insufficient)