Raymond H. Pierson, III v. Bruce S. Rogow, J.D.
669 F. App'x 550
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pierson (pro se) filed a “First Amended Complaint” alleging diversity jurisdiction: he was a California citizen, individual defendants were Florida citizens, and amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- The complaint named Bruce S. Rogow, P.A. as a defendant and alleged it was a Florida corporation; it did not expressly state the firm’s principal place of business.
- Pierson attached Florida Secretary of State annual corporate reports (2010, 2011, 2012, 2014) showing the firm’s principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing failure to properly allege the corporation’s principal place of business.
- Pierson appealed, arguing the attachments and the record as a whole demonstrated the firm’s Florida principal place of business and thus complete diversity existed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether the record could cure the defective jurisdictional pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint adequately alleged diversity jurisdiction | Allegations plus Secretary of State attachments show Rogow’s firm is a Florida corporation with Florida principal place of business, creating complete diversity | District court concluded plaintiff failed to allege the firm’s principal place of business, so diversity not established | Vacated and remanded: record attachments cured the defective averment and supported diversity jurisdiction |
| Whether court may consider the entire record to cure defective jurisdictional pleading | Yes — district courts may look to pleadings and record to determine jurisdiction | Implicitly: jurisdiction must be affirmatively pleaded; failure may justify dismissal | Court reaffirmed that the entire record may be consulted to cure defective averments and relied on attachments to find jurisdiction |
| Whether district court may raise jurisdiction sua sponte at any stage | Plaintiff argued judge may consider record when reviewing jurisdiction | District court properly raised jurisdictional defect sua sponte | Court confirmed federal courts may raise jurisdictional issues at any stage but must dismiss if jurisdiction lacking; here jurisdiction was present on record |
| Whether dismissal without reaching merits was required if jurisdiction lacking | Plaintiff contended jurisdiction existed on record so merits appropriate | If jurisdiction lacking dismissal required | Because record showed diversity, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous; case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) (complete diversity requirement)
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994) (pleader must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating jurisdiction)
- Travaglio v. American Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013) (entire record may be examined to cure defective citizenship averments)
- McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002) (natural-person citizenship = domicile)
- Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (corporation’s citizenship limited to state of incorporation and principal place of business)