Ramos et al v. Estate of Rue E. Canvin et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-00707

ORDER: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/3/2016. (KAK)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION KENNY RAMOS, Individually, KENNY RAMOS, as Managing Member of Hunter Wines & Spirits, LLC, KENNY RAMOS, as Managing Member of Ramos Capital Management, LLC, and KENNY RAMOS, as Managing Member of Ramos & Co., LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-707-T-33JSS ESTATE OF RUE E. CANVIN, ELISIA CANVIN VANDMAELE, Individually, and ELISIA CANVIN VANDMAELE, as Administrator of the Estate of Rue E. Canvin, Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 22, 2016, Mr. Ramos (individually and on behalf of various LLCs), filed a Complaint against the Estate of Rue E. Canvin and the Administrator of the Estate. (Doc. # 1). On April 1, 2016, the Court filed an Order explaining that the Complaint suffers from procedural and jurisdictional defects. (Doc. # 8). For example, the Complaint fails to clearly identify the Plaintiffs and also purports to assert claims on behalf of pro se corporations. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985)("The rule is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through PageID 36 agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel."). The Complaint also asserts that the Court's jurisdiction is predicated upon complete diversity of citizenship, but fails to provide relevant information regarding the parties' citizenship. In addition, the Complaint is not divided into counts or numbered paragraphs and does not include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1959-60 (2007). The Court therefore directed Mr. Ramos to file an Amended Complaint by April 29, 2016, and warned that failure to do so "will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and case closure." (Doc. # 8 at 10). See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)(a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of the court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). Mr. Ramos did not file an Amended Complaint as directed by the Court. As a result, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd 2 PageID 37 day of May, 2016. 3