Villarroel v. Shade Tucker et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-62489-STRAUSS
JAMES VILLARROEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHADE TUCKER et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER was assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant
to Administrative Order 2025-11. However, because I find that dismissal of this case is warranted,
and because I do not presently have authority to issue a dispositive order,1 I am issuing a Report
and Recommendation.2 For the following reasons, I respectfully RECOMMEND that this action
be DISMISSED without prejudice and that any pending motions be DENIED as moot.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against multiple Defendants. 	See
generally [DE 1]. Plaintiff lists Florida addresses for all parties in the action. Id. at 1-2. Although
the Complaint does not contain enumerated counts, it appears to be centered on a breach-of-
contract claim stemming from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., id. at 3 (“All
of Shade’s behavior is a violation of the labor law settlement. Specifically, No Hire #3 and
1 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, so I can only issue
a report and recommendation rather than a dispositive order dismissal.
2 I have separately entered an order directing the Clerk to randomly reassign this case to a District
Judge of this Court.
Case 0:25-cv-62489-AHS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 1 of 5

2
Claimants Agreement to Non-Disclosure #11 of the settlement agreement.”). 	Plaintiff seeks as
relief a return of the $17,000 settlement payment (along with punitive damages). Id. (“Plaintiff
requests our $17,000 settlement be returned. Punitive damages exceed $250,000.00. . . . Shadae
Tucker has violated a Confidential Settlement Agreement therefore [sic] needs to pay back
$17,000.00.”).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because 41 U.S.C. § 6503 is at issue. Id. at 2. However, because that statute clearly
does not apply here, and because the central claim in the Complaint appears to be a garden-variety
claim for breach of contract under state, rather than federal, law, this Court entered an order to
show cause requiring Plaintiff to explain how this Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the
case. 	[DE 5] at 1-2. 	The deadline to respond to the order was December 22, 2025. 	Id. at 2.
Plaintiff never filed any response despite the warning that “[f]ailure to do so may result in dismissal
of this action without further notice.” Id. 	For the reasons described below, I recommend that this
action be dismissed without prejudice and that any pending motions be denied as moot.
ANALYSIS
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Gardner v. Mutz, 962 F.3d 1329, 1336
(11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th
Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 	“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also McIntosh v.
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 5 F.4th 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2021) (“If subject-matter jurisdiction
does not exist, dismissal must be without prejudice.” (citation omitted)).
Case 0:25-cv-62489-AHS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 2 of 5

3
As explained in the order to show cause, Plaintiff appears to allege that federal-question
jurisdiction exists, with 41 U.S.C. § 6503 being the federal law at issue. But that statute clearly
does not apply to garden-variety breach-of-contract claims. Rather, “41 U.S.C. § 6503 provides
the United States with the ability to recover damages when a contractor breaches certain contract
terms.” 	Peters v. United States, 835 F. App’x 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (per curiam). 	That
statute simply does not apply where, as here, no government contract is alleged to be at issue and
no parties are agencies of the federal government. See id. (“As this is not a government contract
case and Peters is not the government, that statutory provision does not apply here.”); see also
Smith v. Am. Van Lines, No. 24-CV-81540, 2024 WL 5704188, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2024)
(“The Complaint cites to 41 U.S.C. § 6503 as the basis of that claim. However, that statute applies
to contracts ‘made by an agency of the United States.’” (citations omitted)); Williams v. Jones, No.
22-CV-21816, 2022 WL 6122322, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2022) (“Because neither Akima Global
nor the Union are agencies of the United States, and the CBA is not a contract ‘for the manufacture
or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment,’ Defendants correctly argue that 41
U.S.C. § 6503(a) cannot provide Williams relief for alleged violations of the CBA.”). Because the
claims here clearly do not arise under § 6503, that statute cannot form the basis for federal-question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the Complaint allege any other federal statute or
law that could form the basis of federal-question jurisdiction.
The Complaint also fails to contain allegations indicating that this Court would have
subject-matter jurisdiction on a different basis, like diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between named plaintiffs and defendants.”
Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). “The burden
for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim.” 	Id.
Case 0:25-cv-62489-AHS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiff lists Florida addresses for all parties to the action. 	While such allegations are not
necessarily determinative of state citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, they also do
not allow the Court to conclude that Plaintiff is completely diverse from all Defendants. Nothing
else in the Complaint indicates that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction through any other
means either.
Therefore, I conclude that the Complaint does not provide any basis for the Court to find
that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and the case must be dismissed without
prejudice accordingly. See McIntosh, 5 F.4th at 1313.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I respectfully RECOMMEND that this action be
DISMISSED without prejudice and that any pending motions be DENIED as moot.
The parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with this Court.3
Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by a District
Judge of this Court of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on
appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds
3 As set forth in Rule 4(b) of the of the Magistrate Judge Rules of this Court’s Local Rules:
Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, recommendations
or report under subsections 1(d), (e), and (f) of these rules, supra, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof, or within such other time as may
be allowed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. Such party shall file with the
Clerk of the Court, and serve on all parties, written objections which shall
specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or
report to which objection is made, the specific basis for such objections, and
supporting legal authority. . . . A District Judge shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
Case 0:25-cv-62489-AHS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 4 of 5

5
of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of December 2025.
Case 0:25-cv-62489-AHS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 5 of 5