King v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP et al

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint filed by Sharon D. King for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/19/2013. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SHARON D. KING

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-344-FtM-29UAM

ASTRAZENECA
PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, and
ASTRAZENECA LP,
Defendants.
ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

on

review

of

the

Complaint (Doc. #1) filed on May 6, 2013,1 by plaintiff pro se
prior

to

obtaining

counsel.

Subject-matter

jurisdiction

is

premised on the presence of diversity of jurisdiction between
the parties.

(Id., ¶¶ 1-6.)

This requires complete diversity

of citizenship, and that the matter in controversy exceed the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
U.S.C.

§ 1332(a);

Morrison

v.

Allstate

Indem.

Co.,

228

28
F.3d

1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff
Florida.

1

alleges

that

(Doc. #1, ¶ 2.)

she

is

a

“resident”

of

Naples,

“In order to be a citizen of a State

If the Court determines “at any time” that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

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).

“A person’s domicile is the place of his true,

fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to
which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent
therefrom.”
Cir.

McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th

2002)(internal

Plaintiff

has

quotation

failed

to

marks

properly

and

citations

allege

her

omitted).

citizenship.

Therefore, no diversity of jurisdiction is alleged.
The Court granted a voluntary dismissal of most of the
defendants, therefore only Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP and
Astrazeneca LP remain at issue.
Pharmaceuticals,

LP

is

alleged

(See Doc. #11.)
to

be

a

Delaware

partnership doing business in the State of Florida.
3.)

The

general

and

limited

partners

Astrazeneca

are

limited

(Doc. #1, ¶

identified

as

Astrazeneca Ab, Zeneca, Inc., Astra USA, Inc., KBI Sub, Inc.,
Astrazeneca UK Limited, and Astra USA Holdings Corporation, and
each defendant is alleged to have a principal place of business

2

in

New

York,

Illinois.

Delaware,

(Id.,

citizenship

of

¶¶

the

New

Jersey,

London,

4-5.)

Plaintiff

general

and/or

does

limited

England,
not

and/or

identify

members

of

the
the

partnership, and a limited partnership itself is not a citizen
for jurisdictional purposes.
185, 189, 195 (1990).

Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S.

Therefore, the Court cannot determine the

citizenship of the remaining defendants, or that diversity of
jurisdiction
opportunity

is
to

present.
state

the

Plaintiff
presence

of

will

be

federal

provided

an

jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
The

Court

further

notes

that

the

Complaint

presents

a

shotgun pleading2 with plaintiff essentially incorporating the
preceding paragraphs in each prior count into each subsequent
count.

(Doc. #1, ¶¶ 39, 49, 55, 68, 75, 85, 94.)

Therefore,

the Complaint is also dismissed on this basis.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

2

“The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts,
each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its
predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts
(i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations
and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear,
Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).

3

The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for lack of subjectmatter

jurisdiction

without

prejudice

to

filing

an

Amended

Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of September, 2013.

Copies:
Counsel of record

4

19th

day