[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3 
2

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 

Case: 13-12155 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
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.

Case: 13-12155 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3