[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS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

- Appe llee.

________________________ 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 32 Deborah Leyv a 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 grandchi ldren, including Zakrzewski . I n her wil l, Hardman named Daniels, Leyva , and Zakrzewski beneficiaries of her estate and named Daniels perso nal 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 l aw. Leyva and Zakrzewski argued the district court had diversity jurisdiction because they are citizens of Florida and Colorado , respectiv ely , and Dani els 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 Hard man’s home state, Florida. T hus, the court determined it lacked d iversity 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 33 exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Diversity jurisdiction requires

co mplete 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 concern s 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 t he district court erroneously found that Daniels was a Florida citizen because their allegations concern ed Daniels acting in his pe rsonal capacity. But t he complaint alleges only that Daniels a cted 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 c itizen , the parties were not complete ly diverse and the district court correctly dismissed the complaint. See Triggs , 154 F.3d at 1287; see also 28 U.S.C. § 13 32(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 liabilit y 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