GILBERTI
v.
RON DESANTIS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims, which are deemed "essentially fictitious" and "obviously without merit."
Plaintiff filed an 112-page complaint alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy involving tax dollars, water, cancer, and economic damage. Several defendants…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 72
PARTNERS, LLC and LUIS E. RIVERA,
Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Plaintiff Joseph Gilberti accuses Defendants of “manipulating and laundering US Tax dollars…to steal unique lands and hide Natural and Endless Drinking water to fill cancer centers with bad manmade treated water from Polluted ground water and Rivers,
Defendants to President Trump, obtaining $10 billion from the Federal Reserve, enlisting the military to help install water supply infrastructure, and returning foreclosed homes to previous owners. Several defendants moved to dismiss, but the Court stayed this case pending the results of Gilberti’s appeal of the dismissal of a nearly identical case he filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The D.C. District Court dismissed that case because federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over “patently insubstantial” claims. Gilberti v. Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 1:19-CV-738, 2019 WL 1901293, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2019). The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, finding
that Gilberti “alleged no plausible facts that would entitle him to relief.” Gilberti v. Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 19-5264, 2020 WL 1487738 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 2020). Gilberti filed another substantially similar case in this District: Gilberti v. Adrurra Grp. Inc., No. 8:19-CV-2012-VMC-AAS. It too was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no error with the district court’s conclusion that Gilberti’s claims were patently without merit. Gilberti v. Adrurra Grp., Inc., No. 19-15176, 2020 WL 1951663, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2020). The Court agrees with the other district and circuit courts that have evaluated Gilberti’s claims—they are “essentially fictitious” and “obviously without merit.” Id. at *1 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974)). As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is warranted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) Joseph D. Gilberti, Jr.'s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 15th day of May, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record