Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. West Coast Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that properly alleges this Court's subject matter ju risdiction no later than November 19, 2014. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the case being dismissed without further notice for failure to allege this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/5/2014. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TRAVELERS
CASUALTY
AND
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-630-FtM-38CM

WEST
COAST
ROOFING
&
WATERPROOFING,
INC.,
MCDANIEL
NICHOLAS
CONSTRUCTION, INC., MITCHELL
B.
NICHOLAS,
MELINDA
A.
NICHOLAS, BILLY W. MCDANIEL,
JR. and MELANIE MCDANIEL,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1)
filed on October 29, 2014. A federal court is powerless to act without proper subject
matter jurisdiction. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975 (11th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, “it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Id. (citing Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims pursuant to federal
questions and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff’s

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

cause of action “arises under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ordinarily, whether a federal
question exists in a pending action must be determined on the face of a plaintiff’s wellpleaded complaint. Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d
1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152
(1908)). Whereas claims properly brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction
contain matters where the parties are completely diverse with regard to citizenship and
where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255,
1261 (11th Cir. 2000). In an action filed directly in federal court, a plaintiff bears the burden
of adequately pleading and ultimately proving jurisdiction. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
505 F.3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff initiated this matter on October 29, 2014, by filing a complaint with two
counts: breach of contract against all Defendants (Count 1) and common law indemnity
against Defendant West Coast Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. (Count 2). (Doc. #1 at 68). A review of the Complaint, however, reveals that Plaintiff only states the residency,
rather than the domicile, of Defendants. An individual is a citizen where she is domiciled,
the place of an individual’s true, fixed, and permanent home and to which he has the
intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom. Arrol v. Heron, No. 2:10-cv-655FtM-29DNF, 2011 WL 672417, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011). Therefore, diversity
jurisdiction has not been properly presented. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to properly
allege federal jurisdiction before this Court.

2

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff
shall file an amended complaint that properly alleges this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction no later than November 19, 2014. Failure to comply with this Order may
result in the case being dismissed without further notice for failure to allege this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 5th day of November, 2014.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3