FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 85 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 39 68 -WBH DOROTHEA CORNELIUS, ALI S. MUHAMMAD, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us U.S. BANK NAT IONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trus te e fo r th e st ru ctur edAss etSecu rit ie s Co rp or at io n M ortg ag e Pas s- Thro ug h C ert ifi cat es , Seri es 20 06 -BC6 , AMERIC AN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., MCC URDY & CANDLER, LLC, MCC URDY & CANDLER BANKRUPTCY LLC, ANTHONYDEMARLO, et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 29 , 20 11 )Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Dor ot he a Co rn el iu s an d Al i S. M uh amm ad , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal th e di st ric t co urt’s su a s

po nt e di sm is sa l o f th ei r act io n u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( h) (3 ) fo r la ck of s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Corne li us an d Mu ha m m adco nt en d t ha t the di st ric t co urt ei th er m is ap pl ie d t he di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on st atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2, o r sh ou ldha ve cu redan y lac k o f di ve rs it y by dis m is si ng an y

no nd iv ers e d efen dant s t he y na m ed . In the alt ern at iv e, th ey arg ue th atth ei r co m

pl ai ntpre se nt s a f

ed eral qu es ti on . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , con stru in g the co m pl ai ntin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff
an d a ccep ti ng all well -p le d fa ct s al le ge d i n the co m pl ai ntas t ru e.” Qua il

Cr uises Sh ip Mgmt . Ltd. v. Agen ci a de Via ge ns CVC Tu r Li mitad a , 64 5 F .3d13 07 , 13 09 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Ple ad in gs fil edby pr o s e li ti ga nt s ar e g iv enli be ral
co ns tru ct io n, b ut“ we ne ve rth el es s h av e requi redth em to co nf orm to pro cedur al
ru le s.” Mot on v. Co wa rt , 63 1 F .3d13 37 , 13 41 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Plai nt iff

s m us t “ affi rm at iv el y

all eg e fac ts de m on st rat in g t he ex is te nc e o f juri sd ic ti on .” Ta

yl or v. App le to n , 30 F.3d13 65 , 13 67 (11 thCir . 19 94 ); se e a ls o

2Mor riso n v . Alls ta te Indem. Co
. , 22 8 F .3d12 55 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ It i s t he

pl ai nt iff’s bu rd en. . . to all eg e wit h s uf fic ie ntpa rti cu la rit y

th e fac ts crea ti ng juri sd ic ti on . . . .” (quo ta ti on om it te d) ). Fed eral co urts have li m it edjuri sd ic ti on an d a re “ ob li ga te d t o i nqui re i nt o subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on su a s po nt e when ev er i t m ay

be lac ki ng .” Boc he se v. To wn of Pon ce In le t , 40 5 F .3d96 4, 9 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). If atan y ti m e dur in g t he pr oc eed in gs th e co urt d et erm in es th atitlac ks subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , “ th e co urt m us t d is m is s the act io n.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (h )(3 ). A cou rt m ay , ho wev er, up on a m ot io n o r on it s o wn i ni ti at iv e, dr op di sp en sabl e p art ie s wh os e p res en ce i n a cas e m ay

di ve stth e co urt o f juri sd ic ti on . Fed . R. Civ . P. 21 ; Gru po Dataf lux v. Atlas Glo ba l Gr ou

p, L.P. , 54 1 U.S. 5 67 , 57 2- 73 (20 04 ). Ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 ba se d upo n t he pa rti es ’ di ve rs it y of ci ti zen sh ip “ requi res co m pl et e d iv ers it y

—ev ery pl ai nt iff

m us t b e d iv ers e fro m ev ery de fen da nt .” Palmer v. Hos p. Au th . of

Ran do lp h C

nt y. , 22 F.3d15 59 , 15 64 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Corne li us an d M uh am m ad ’s com

pl ai ntpl ai nl y

sh ows th atbo th th ey an d s ev eral of t he de fen da nt s t he y su edare ci ti zen s o f th e st at e o f Geo rg ia , as th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed
. Andwe ha ve in di cat edth ata di st ric t co urt’s au th or it y 1
Cornelius and Muhammad’ s contention that the district court ignored 28 U .S.C. 1 § 1332(c) (1) misundersta nds the relationship of that subsection and § 1332(a ). Subsection (c )(1) explains how citiz enship, as used in subsec tion (a), is dete rmined for corpor ate e ntities. 3to di sm is s a p arty who sp oi ls co m

pl et e d iv ers it y

is pe rm is si ve an d d is cret io na ry . Fri tzv. Ameri ca n Ho me Sh ie ld Co rp . , 75 1 F .2d11 52 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ); se e al so Ca te rp il la r In c. v. Lew is , 51 9 U.S. 6 1, 7 6 (1 99 6) (st at in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt is be tt er p os it io ne d t o d et erm in e whe th er d is m is sa l o f a n on di ve rs e p arty is ap pr op ria te ). Co rn el iu s an d M uh amm adne ve r m ov edto di sm is s t he de fen da nt s with wh om

th ey sh are c it iz en sh ip , no r do th ey off er an y ex pl an at io n a s t o h ow t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to do so of i ts own acco rdco ns ti tu te d a n abu se of d is cret io n un de r Ru le 21
. II. The di stric t co urt al so fou ndth atth e co m pl ai ntlac ke d a ny sub st an ti al fed eral qu es ti on su ffi ci en t t o i nv ok e it s ju ris di ct io n u nd er 1 2 U.S.C. § 13 31
. Und er tha t p ro vi si on , a fed eral co urt wi ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on on ly whe n t he pl ai nt iff’s cau se of a ct io n i s co nf erre d b y fed eral law o r whe n t he re i s s om e

“ co nt es te d[ , subs tant ia l] fed eral is su e” an d t he ex erci se of juris di ct io n i s

“ co ns is te ntwith c on gr es si on al jud gm en t ab ou t the so un d d iv is io n o f labo r be twee n s ta te an d fe de ral co urts . . . .” Gra bl e &So ns Meta l Pr od s., In c. v. Dar ue Eng ’g &Mfg
. , 54 5 U.S. 3 08 , 31 3 (2 00 5) . The m ere p res en ce o f a fed eral ly

L ikewise, the district c ourt was not re quired to examine the applica bility of § 1332(a )(2) -(3) , as Cornelius and Muhammad now a ssert, bec ause the ir alleg ations do not involve citiz ens of a fore ign nation. 4reg ul at edde fen da ntdo es no t o f it se lf r ai se a subs ta nt ia l fe de ral qu es ti on . E.g. ,

Fir st Fed. S av . &Lo an Ass ’n of

La ke Worth v . Bro wn , 70 7 F .2d12 17 , 12 20 (11 th Ci r. 19 83 ). Exce ptfor

th e b are m en ti on of “ RESPA,” wh ic h p res um ab ly refers to th e Rea l Es ta te Set tl em en t Pr oc edur es Act, 1 2 U.S.C. § 26 01 -2 61 7, the re i s n o refe ren ce t o fe de ral law i n C orne li us an d M uh amm ad ’s com pl ai nt . Andth e co m pl ai ntdo es no t i nd ic at e wha t p orti onof t ha t ActCo rn el iu s an d M uh am m ad cl ai m was v io la te d o r wha t fa ctua l al le ga ti on s the y co nt en d wo ul d c on st itut e a vi ol at io n. Ev enco ns tru in g t he ir c om pl ai ntli be ral ly, Co rn el iu s an d M uh am m ad fai le d t o a ll eg e fac ts sh owi ng a subs ta nt ia l fe de ral qu es ti on . 2 III. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th is act io n fo r la ck of subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

We also decline to a ddress the r egulatory violations that Cornelius and Muhammad have 2 alleg ed for

the first time on appe al. Even a plaintiff proc eeding pro semay not amend its complaint by

argument in an appe llate brief
. See Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Cf. Gilmour v. Gates, M cDonald &Co. , 382 F.3d 1312, 1314- 15 (11th Cir. 2004 (stating that a plaintiff may not “amend [her] complaint through argument in a brief opposing summar

y judgme nt”). 5