FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 17 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 1- cv -0 00 46 -MTT
EARL A. BRYANT,
Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ALLY FINANCIAL, f.k.a . GMAC, In c., MCC ULLOUGH PAYNE & HAAN, LLC.,
Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 17 , 20 12 )Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: App el la ntEarl A. Bryant , pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er di sm is si ng hi s co m

pl ai ntwit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r la ck

of s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Fo r th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, we affi rm . I. Bryantfil edth e p res en t pr o s e co m pl ai ntwit h t he di st ric t co ur t i n 2 01 1, al le gi ng th atAll y

Fin an ci al (“ All y ”), fo rm al ly kno wn as GMAC, refu se d t o
co m m un ic at e wit h h im

reg ard in g ave hi cl e h e h adlea se d, an d t ha t Al ly had
wro ng fu ll y

fil eda fo recl os ur e act io n a ga in sthi m in a Geo rg iast at e co ur t i n 2 01 0, cl ai m in g re po ss es si on an d d efau ltch arg es . In t he st at e co ur t ac ti on , Bry an t
co un te rcl ai m edan d s ou gh t $ 25 ,00 0 i n d am ag es bu t t he st at e co ur t ev en tu al ly di sm is se d h is co un te rcl ai m , andgra nt edrel ie f to All y . In do cu m en ts fil edwit h t he di st ric t co urt, Bry an t s ou gh t $ 75 ,00 0 i n da m ag es fro m

All y forbre ach of “ in te rs ta te co m m erce co nt ract ,” frau d, an d l ib el
. Bryantsubs eque nt ly file d a dd it io na l l et te rs th athe ha d s en t t o t he pa rti es , anda
su m m on s ad di ng th e Mc Cu ll ou gh , Payne & Haan , LLC (“ MPH”) law fi rm , a li m it edli ab il it y

co m pa ny in At la nt a, Geo rg ia , as ade fen da ntbe cau se of i ts act io ns du rin g i ts rep res en ta ti on of Al ly in t he st at e co ur t p ro ceed in gs . Never th el es s, h e
2di d n otall eg e, in an y of h is pl ead in gs , th e ci ti zen sh ip of t he law fi rm or i ts
m em be rs . II.

“ W e rev ie w di sm is sa ls forlac k o f su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo .” Bar bo ur v. Hal ey , 47 1 F .3d12 22 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A di st ric t co ur t’s fa ctua l fin di ng s wi th res pe ctto juri sd ic ti on are re vi ewedforcle ar erro r. Brya nt v. Rich , 53 0 F .3d13 68 , 13 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Whi le factua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he ci ti zen sh ip of apa rty for t he pu rp os es of d et erm in in g d iv ers it y are n orm al ly
su bjec t t o t he cle arl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof r ev ie w, is su es no t b rie fedon ap pe al by
a pr o s e li ti ga ntare d eem edab an do ne d. Mac Gin ni ti e v. Hob bs Gro up , LLC , 42 0 F.3 d 1 23 4, 1 23 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (st an da rdof r ev ie w); Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F.3 d 8 70 , 87 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ab an do nm en t). “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o a le ss st rin ge ntst an da rdth an pl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s, an d a re l ib eral ly
co ns tru ed .” Bin gh am v. Th oma s , 65 4 F .3d11 71 , 11 75 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e m ay “ affi rm th e [d ]istric t [c ]our t o n a ny bas is
supp orte d b y

th e rec or d.” Mil le r v. Ha rg et , 45 8 F .3d12 51 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). J ur is di ct io n “ can no t be waiv ed or ot he rwis e co nf erre d up on th e co ur t b y t h e pa rti es .” Boc hese v. To wn of Pon ce In l e t , 4 0 5 F.3 d 96 4, 97 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
. Pl ai nt iff s m us t “ affi rm at iv el y al le ge fact s
3de m on st rat in g th e ex is te nc e ofjuri sd ic ti on .” Ta yl or v. App le to n , 30 F.3 d 13 65 , 13 67 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ); se e al

so Mor riso n v. All

stat e In de m. Co

. , 22 8 F.3 d 12 55 , 12 73 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ It i s t he pl ai nt iff’s bu rd en. . . to all eg e wit h su ffi ci en t pa rti cu la rit y th e fact s cr eat in g juris di ct io n . . .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Fo r cl ai m s ari si ng un de r fed eral la w, 28 U.S.C. § 13 31 pr ov id es fed eral su bjec t
m at te r juri sd i c t i on . “ The te st or di na ril y ap pl ie d
. . . is whe th er a fed eral qu es ti on ap p e a r s o n th e face of th e pl ai nt iff’s well -p le ad ed co m pl ai nt .” Co nn ect ic ut St at e Den ta l Ass ’n v. Anthe m Hea lt h Pl an s, In c. , 59 1 F.3 d 13 37 , 13 43 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). Fo r a cl ai m whi ch do es no t ari se un de r f e d e r a l la w, 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 pr ov id es
or ig in al fed eral di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , whi ch go ve rn s di sp ut es am on g pa rti es fro m di ffer en t s ta te s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a). Sect io n 1 33 2( a) re qu ire s co m pl et e d iv ers it y , m ean in g th at no pl ai nt iff m ay ha ve th e sa m e do m ic il e a s an y de fen da nt
. Underwr it er

s at Ll oy d’

s, Lo ndon v. Ost in g- Sc hw in n , 61 3 F.3 d 10 79 , 10 85 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)
. To su ffi ci en tl y al le ge th e ci ti zen sh ip of an un in co rp or at ed
en ti ty, li ke a li m it ed li ab il it y co m pa ny, “ [A] pa rty m

us t li st th e ci ti zen sh ip s of al l th e
m em be rs . . . .” Mal lo ry & Eva ns Co ntra ct or s v. Tu sk eg ee Uni v. ,

__

_ F..3d

__

_ No. 11 -1 09 40 (1 1t h Ci r. Dec. 5, 20 11 ). Fo r a fed eral co ur t to ha ve or ig in al juri sd ic ti on
ov er a di ve rs it y act io n, th e am ou nt in c o n t r o v e r s y al so m us t ex ceed $7 5,0 00 , ex cl u s iv e of in te res t an d co st s. 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a). “ [T]he pa rty in vo ki ng th e
4co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g, by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce,

fact s supp or ti ng th e ex is te nc e of fed eral juri sd ic ti on .” McCo rmi ck v. Ade rh ol t , 29 3 F.3 d 1 25 4, 1 25 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. Bryant ’s cla im s fa il fortwo reas on s. Fi rs t, Bry an t h as ab an do ne d a ny ch al le ng e to th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d is m is sa l b ecau se he do es no t m en ti on subjec t
m at te r juri sd ic ti on in hi s ap pe ll at e b rie f, ex cep t t o i nc lu de th e fi na l p ag e o f th e di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er, an d d oe s n otpro vi de an y arg um en t o n t hi s p oi nt . Seco nd , ev en if we c on cl ud e th atBry an t h as no t ab an do ne d t he is su es , hi s cl ai m s s ti ll fai l be cau se : (1 ) th ere was no ba si s fo r § 1 33 1 fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e p le ad in gs sh ow t ha t al l o f hi s cl ai m s ar os e u nd er s ta te law; (2) th ere was no ba si s fo r § 1 33 2 d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on as B ry an t fa il edto su ffi ci en tl y pl eadth e ci ti zen sh ip of t he pa rti es ; an d (3 ) hi s cl ai m edda m ag es di d n otex ceed$7 5,0 00
. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l fo r la ckof
su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

5MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g s pe ci al ly:

I co nc urin th e co ur t’s jud gm en t af firm in g t he Dis tri ctCo ur t’s d is m is sa l wit ho utpre

jud ic e. I co nc ur

sp eci al ly to n ot e th at , bec au se th is is a di sm is sa l wit ho utpre

jud ic e, Bryantis free to refi le th is laws ui t, i f he de te rm in es th athi s cl ai m s s at is fy

th e req ui rem en ts forFed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on .

6