Jussi K. Kivisto v. Armi Kulmala ( 2012 )

Case: 12-12091 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12091
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-81135-KLR
JUSSI K. KIVISTO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARMI KULMALA,
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC,
f.k.a. A.G. Edwards,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 19, 2012)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jussi Kivisto, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
Case: 12-12091 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 2 of 5
action to compel arbitration and stay state court proceedings and for declaratory
relief, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Kivisto filed a complaint in federal district court against Armi Kulmala and Wells
Fargo Advisors, LLC, seeking to compel arbitration related to a state court action
initiated by Kulmala against Kivisto and Wells Fargo to determine the proper
beneficiary of a Wells Fargo brokerage account that was owned by Leo Jaakola
prior to his death. Kulmala alleged in the state court action that she was the
intended beneficiary of the $61,957.84 held in the account, that Kivisto, as
Jaakola’s attorney, unduly influenced Jaakola to sign a transfer agreement directing
that the funds in the account be distributed to Kivisto, and that Wells Fargo
negligently turned over the funds to Kivisto and not Kulmala.
The district court dismissed Kivisto’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, finding that the only possible basis for federal jurisdiction was
diversity jurisdiction and that the amount in controversy in the underlying state
claim which Kivisto sought to arbitrate did not exceed the $75,000 threshold
necessary to establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
On appeal, Kivisto argues that the district court improperly dismissed his
federal complaint because the amount in controversy in the underlying state claim
included not only the $61,957.84 value of the Wells Fargo account, but also
attorney’s fees by operation of contract and state law, and a reasonable calculation
2
Case: 12-12091 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 3 of 5
of those fees showed, when added to the account value, that the $75,000
jurisdictional amount had been satisfied.
We review a district court’s rulings on subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005). A
federal court must dismiss an action if it determines, at any time, that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Bochese v. Towne of Ponce
Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir. 2005).
Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction and generally can hear only
actions that either meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction or that involve a
federal question. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367
(11th Cir. 1994). Here, it is not disputed that diversity jurisdiction is the only
possible basis for federal jurisdiction over Kivisto’s complaint and that the
dispositive issue is whether Kivisto has met the $75,000 amount in controversy
requirement. “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).
The district court rejected Kivisto’s argument regarding the attorney’s fees,
concluding that the contract governing the brokerage account would not entitle
Kulmala to attorney’s fees. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1305 (11th
3
Case: 12-12091 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 4 of 5
Cir. 2001) (holding that attorney’s fees are not included in determining the
jurisdictional amount in controversy unless the award of fees is authorized by a
statute or contract). Specifically, the district court noted that the contract between
Wells Fargo and Jaakala did not create a right to attorney’s fees to Kulmala from
Wells Fargo and that the attorney’s fees provision was inapplicable to the type of
claims asserted in the state court action. Alternatively, the district court concluded
that even if it assumed the contract would entitle Kulmala to attorney’s fees,
Kivisto’s allegation regarding the amount of fees was too conclusory. See
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir.
2003) (quotations omitted) (stating that where jurisdiction is based on an
undetermined amount of damages, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction
must prove that the claim meets the threshold jurisdictional amount by a
preponderance of the evidence).
Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s conclusion that Kivisto failed to meet his burden of
establishing that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold and
thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kivisto’s complaint
against Kulmala and Wells Fargo. Additionally, regardless of the district court’s
findings as to the jurisdictional amount, it also properly found that it lacked
jurisdiction over Kivisto’s claims against Wells Fargo because there was no
4
Case: 12-12091 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 5 of 5
controversy between Kivisto and Wells Fargo to confer Article III standing before
the federal court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
5