The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LATIESHA BRAXTON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:24-cv-234-JES-NPM
NEWREZ LLC d/b/a Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #16), filed on
September 23, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim and because
it is otherwise frivolous. Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc.
#18) on October 7, 2025.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific
objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review
factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff was financially
eligible to proceed in forma pauperis but required an amended
complaint to satisfy review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. #12.)
On April 7, 2025, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc.
#15). Upon review of the amended pleading, the Magistrate Judge
noted that it failed to allege subject matter jurisdiction based
on a federal question or under diversity of citizenship. (Doc.
#16, p. 2.) The Magistrate Judge further noted that the pleading
“appears to be foreclosed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” (Id.
at 2-3.) Plaintiff objects to both conclusions.
In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts
jurisdiction under the Truth and Lending Act (TILA) and the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act. (Doc. #15 at p. 2.) Count I seeks
declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Count II seeks to quiet
title, Count III asserts a breach of contract, Counts IV and V are
both under Florida law, and Counts VI and VII are common law state
claims. None of the counts are presented under TILA and “[t]he
federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02 (1976),
does not expand federal jurisdiction; the Act merely creates a new
remedy in cases or controversies for which an independent basis of
federal jurisdiction exists.” First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of
Lake Worth v. Brown, 707 F.2d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 1983). “The
operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only. []
If there is an underlying ground for federal court jurisdiction,
the Declaratory Judgment Act ‘allows parties to precipitate suits
that otherwise might need to wait for the declaratory relief
defendant to bring a coercive action.’” Household Bank v. JFS
Grp., 320 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations
omitted). Therefore, plaintiff has not presented a federal claim
supporting federal jurisdiction.
While plaintiff argues that diversity jurisdiction is
present, the First Amended Complaint does not provide sufficient
information to make that determination. Plaintiff alleges that
she is a “natural person and homeowner residing” in Florida. (Doc.
#15, p. 2.) “In order to be a citizen of a State within the
meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the
State.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828
(1989). Pleading residency is not the equivalent of pleading
domicile. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d
1330, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011); Corporate Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v.
Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2009);
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Further,
defendant is a limited liability company, and the only information
provided is that it is a Delaware company doing business in
Florida. (Doc. #15, p. 2.) A limited liability company is a
citizen of any state of which a member is a citizen. Rolling
Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020
(11th Cir. 2004). The members, and their citizenship information
are not provided. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction is not
apparent from the face of the First Amended Complaint.
Additionally, there are no facts stated that would support an
amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff also objects that dismissal at the pleading stage
is premature, that her claims are not barred, and that she complied
with instructions to amend the complaint. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because no allegations
in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. #15) support a federal
question or the presence of diversity of citizenship. The Court
declines to consider whether jurisdiction is also lacking due to
Rooker1-Feldman2, or if the First Amended Complaint would state a
claim if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction.
After conducting an independent examination of the file, the
Court accepts the portion of the Report and Recommendation
regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without passing on
1 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2 D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
the Rooker-Feldman issue. The Court will dismiss the First
Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but will
allow plaintiff to file a new amended complaint if she believes
she can demonstrate federal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED :
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #16) is hereby
adopted to the extent discussed herein and is otherwise moot.
2. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may
file a second amended complaint if she can allege subject matter
jurisdiction within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this
Opinion and Order. If no second amended complaint is filed, the
Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close
the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 10th day
of October 2025.
adi EF. STEELE
SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Hon. Nicholas P. Mizell
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties