Leonard Francis Incorvaia v. Helen Incorvaia

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-14355 JANUARY 4, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-01219-CV-T-17-EAJ
LEONARD FRANCIS INCORVAIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HELEN CLAUDETTE INCORVAIA,
now known as Shafe,
C. JEFF SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 4, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Francis Incorvaia (“Incorvaia”), a citizen of Florida,1 filed a pro se
complaint, naming as defendants Helen Incorvaia (“Helen”) and C. Jeff Smith and
alleging state law claims of fraudulent conveyance in connection with divorce
proceedings and the distribution of marital assets.2 As the basis for federal
jurisdiction, Incorvaia alleged that the parties were diverse because Helen was a
citizen of Florida and Smith was a citizen of North Carolina, and the amount in
controversy exceeded $75,000.
The district court dismissed the complaint because the parties were not
completely diverse, as Helen and Incorvaia both were citizens of Florida.
On appeal, Incorvaia puts forth facts not submitted before the district court
as evidence of the fraudulent conveyance. He alleges that the court had
jurisdiction under federal civil RICO statutes, which would preempt state
jurisdiction over his claims.
We review rulings on the subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. MacGinnitie
v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005). Factual findings
regarding the citizenship of a party are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of
review. Id.1
Incorvaia did not identify himself as a citizen of Florida. However, the address given on
his pleadings was a Florida address.
2
See e.g., Stock v. Stock, 693 So.2d 1080, 1084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997) (discussing fraudulent
conveyance).
2
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction
over all civil actions “between . . . citizens of different States” where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As the Supreme Court has
explained, the statute requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all
defendants. Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, – S.Ct. –, 2005 WL 3158018, at *5
(2005); Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Serv., Inc., – U.S.–, 125 S.Ct. 2611,
2616-17, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005); MacGinnitie, 420 F.3d at 1239. Therefore,
“[i]n a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the
action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the
district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon
Mobile Corp., 125 S.Ct. at 2617.
Here, the complaint indicates that Incorvaia and Helen are both citizens of
Florida. Therefore, Incorvaia failed to establish that the parties were completely
diverse as required under § 1332(a). As Incorvaia raised only state law claims,3
there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
3
Incorvaia also claimed the parties violated civil RICO statutes; however, he cited the
federal criminal statute. To the extent that Incorvaia alleges RICO violations, he cannot raise these
claims for the first time on appeal. Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994).
Nevertheless, the claims lack merit, as “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct.
1146, 1149, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).
3