[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11552

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:12-cv-80788-KLR

DAVID ZINN, MICHELLE BAIO, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

NORTHSTAR FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company,

NORTHSTAR CEMETERY SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

LEVITT WEINSTEIN MEMORIAL CHAPELS, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

LEVITT WEINSTEIN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC., 

a Florida corporation, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 11, 2014)

Case: 13-11552 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA and SILER,

* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This appeal arises from a decision by the district court dismissing the 

plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing under Article III. The plaintiffs are two 

individuals who reserved grave plots and purchased pre-need burial services at 

cemeteries run by the defendants. They filed their original complaint in state court

as a class action. The complaint alleged that the defendants routinely defiled the 

graves in their cemeteries through various unsavory practices, such as making 

room for more bodies by moving or damaging the outer burial containers of 

individuals who were already buried. It further alleged that the defendants covered 

up those defilements so that customers would not learn about them. Based on 

those allegations, the original complaint sought damages on behalf of all the 

individuals who had loved ones buried at those cemeteries, as well as all the 

individuals who had reserved grave plots or purchased pre-need burial services at 

those cemeteries. 

After the defendants removed the case to federal court using a provision of 

the Class Action Fairness Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), the plaintiffs 

amended their complaint to remove the request for class action certification. But 

when the plaintiffs amended their complaint, they failed to include any factual 

 * Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by 

designation.

Case: 13-11552 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

allegations establishing that the grave plots they reserved had actually been 

affected by the alleged acts of the defendants.

As a result, their amended complaint does not allege the injury-in-fact 

necessary to establish standing under Article III. See Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). Similarly, their failure 

to allege any personal detriment means that their Florida statutory claims assert

mere “abstract statutory violation[s],” which Article III prevents us from deciding.

See Charvat v. Mut. First Fed. Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir. 2013). 

We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint 

with prejudice. We note that our conclusion is consistent with an earlier decision 

by another panel of this Court holding that a nearly identical complaint failed to 

satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. See Schwartz v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., 

No. 13-11830, 2014 WL 443588 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2014). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11552 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 3 of 3