FTE Networks, Inc. v. Ancor

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing case re 1 Complaint. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint on or before June 15, 2017. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by this date will result in this matter being closed. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/9/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FTE NETWORKS, INC., a Nevada
corporation
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-312-FtM-99CM

CARLIE ANCOR,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) filed
on June 7, 2017. Subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on the presence of diversity of
citizenship between the parties.

(Id. at ¶ 2).

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228
F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). 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).

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
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 websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. 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.

Defendant fails to establish complete diversity of citizenship. An individual is a
citizen where he is domiciled, not necessarily where he is a resident. See McCormick v.
Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”). Domicile is the place of an individual’s true, fixed,
and permanent home and to which he intends to return whenever he is absent therefrom.
See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (citations
omitted). A domicile is not synonymous with a residence, and it is possible for someone
to reside in one place but be domiciled in another. See id. Plaintiff has failed to properly
allege the citizenship of the individually-named Defendant, simply stating that Defendant
resides in Parker, Colorado. (Doc. 1, ¶ 4). Therefore, the Court cannot determine that
diversity of citizenship is present. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to state the
presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint on or before June 15, 2017. Failure to
file an Amended Complaint by this date will result in this matter being closed.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 9th day of June, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2