Deborah Leyva v. Major Christopher Daniels

Case: 13-12155 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12155
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-00652-JDW-AEP
DEBORAH LEYVA,
SARAH ZAKRZEWSKI,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
MAJOR CHRISTOPHER DANIELS,
personally,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 24, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12155 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Deborah Leyva and Sarah Zakrzewski appeal the district court’s dismissal of
their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After careful review, we
affirm.
Marliene Hardman died in 2012, leaving behind two children, Christopher
Daniels and Leyva, and several grandchildren, including Zakrzewski. In her will,
Hardman named Daniels, Leyva, and Zakrzewski beneficiaries of her estate and
named Daniels personal representative. Leyva and Zakrzewski sued Daniels in
federal court, alleging that he breached his fiduciary duty to them as beneficiaries,
mismanaged the estate, engaged in self-dealing, and generally did not fulfill his
obligations under Florida probate law. Leyva and Zakrzewski argued the district
court had diversity jurisdiction because they are citizens of Florida and Colorado,
respectively, and Daniels is a citizen of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The
district court, however, concluded that because the complaint alleged claims
against Daniels only as the legal representative of Hardman’s estate, he was treated
as a citizen of Hardman’s home state, Florida. Thus, the court determined it lacked
diversity jurisdiction. Leyva and Zakrzewski now appeal.
“The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo.”
Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., — F.3d — , No. 11-15292, 2013 WL 4406389, at
*2 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil
actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy
2
Case: 13-12155 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3
exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Triggs
v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be
deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” A legal
representative can retain his personal citizenship only if the suit concerns him
acting in a personal capacity. See Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cnty., 22
F.3d 1559, 1562 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994).
Leyva and Zakrzewski argue the district court erroneously found that
Daniels was a Florida citizen because their allegations concerned Daniels acting in
his personal capacity. But the complaint alleges only that Daniels acted
improperly as the representative of Hardman’s estate. Any potential liability
Daniels faces arises out of actions he took as the estate’s legal representative, not
as an individual. Thus, Daniels is deemed a Florida citizen for purposes of this
suit. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).1 And because Leyva is also a Florida citizen,
the parties were not completely diverse and the district court correctly dismissed
the complaint. See Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
AFFIRMED.
1
Leyva and Zakrzewski argue that Daniels retains his personal citizenship because he could be
held personally liable under Florida law, but they cite no case indicating that personal liability
cannot be imposed on an individual when he acts in a representative capacity.
3