Philippeaux v. Entin

Background

Philander Philippeaux, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alvin Ernest Entin; Entin & Della Fera, P.A.; Joyce London; Joyce London, P.C.; and Christopher Madiou, Esq. He asserted legal-malpractice and related claims against his former criminal-defense attorneys and their law firms. The opinion states that London and Madiou were Philippeaux’s trial counsel and that Entin was his appellate counsel.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A magistrate judge recommended granting each motion and dismissing the case with prejudice. Philippeaux filed objections to that recommendation.

Jurisdictional objections

Philippeaux challenged the recommendation’s conclusion that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship in different states. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. The court stated that Philippeaux and Entin appeared to be citizens of Florida, which defeated complete diversity. It also explained that diversity would be lacking whether Philippeaux was treated as a Florida citizen or a New York citizen, because the action included Entin, identified as a Florida citizen, and London, identified as a New York citizen.

Philippeaux also argued that the court had federal-question jurisdiction because his claims involved federal law and arose under the Constitution or federal treaties. The court rejected that argument because he did not identify a federal law or statute underlying his claims. It agreed with the magistrate judge that the claims were tort claims rooted in state law and that legal-malpractice claims did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also addressed Philippeaux’s assertion, raised for the first time in his objections, that he was a foreign citizen or alien. It declined to consider that new argument and stated that, even if considered, it would not establish diversity jurisdiction because the opinion treated his domicile as Florida and explained that a person has only one domicile for diversity purposes.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams found no error in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. She adopted it in its entirety, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, mail a copy of the order to Philippeaux, and close the case.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without deciding whether the alleged legal malpractice occurred.