Canopius US Insurance, Inc. v. Sagun Corporation et al

Filing 4

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until May 21, 2014, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/23/2014. (KAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

CANOPIUS US INSURANCE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-457-J-34JBT

SAGUN CORPORATION d/b/a SUNRISE
FOOD MART; NIRANJAN SURYAKANT
PATEL; CHERYL WERMUTH; LINDA
KOLUMBUS; GARY KOLUMBUS; and UHAUL CO. OF FLORIDA,
Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
April 21, 2014, by filing a three-count Complaint for Declaratory Judgement (Doc. No. 1;
Complaint) against Defendants. Upon review of Complaint, the Court is unable to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over this action. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland
v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001). This obligation exists
regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)
(“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have
at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific

statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F.3d 1466,
1469 (11th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332 as the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
$75,000.00, and there is diversity among the parties. Complaint at 2-3. For a court to have
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all
defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412. Upon review of the allegations in the
Complaint, however, the Court is unable to determine the citizenship of several Defendants.1
Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant, Sagun Corporation d/b/a Sunrise Food Mart (“Sagun”) is
a domestic company organized and existing in the State of Florida with its principal place of
business within the jurisdiction of this Court.” Complaint at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants Cheryl Wermuth, Linda Kolumbus, and Gary Kolumbus are “resident[s] of
Brevard County, Florida and [are] sui generis.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant,
U-Haul Co. of Florida (hereinafter “U-Haul”) is a domestic company organized and existing
in the State of Florida with its principal place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court.”
Id. These allegations are insufficient to demonstrate these Defendants’ citizenships.
“The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that ‘a corporation shall be deemed
to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has
its principal place of business.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct 1181, 1185 (2010) (quoting

1

Plaintiff has properly alleged its citizenships and has properly alleged the citizenship of Defendant
Niranjan Suryakant Patel. See Complaint at 2.
-2-

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)) (emphasis removed). Accordingly, the allegation that “Defendant
Sagun . . . is a domestic company organized and existing in the State of Florida with its
principal place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court” is insufficient to disclose
Sagun’s citizenships.

The allegation does not disclose the State in which Sagun is

incorporated or the location of its principal place of business. See Hertz, 130 S.Ct at 1185.
Additionally, the allegation that “Defendant U-Haul . . . is a domestic company
organized and existing in the State of Florida with its principal place of business within the
jurisdiction of this Court” is insufficient to disclose U-Haul’s citizenships. Here, Plaintiff does
not identify whether U-Haul is a corporation or a different type of business organization. As
such, clarification is necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff
must specify whether U-Haul is a corporation or some other type of business organization.
If, indeed, U-Haul is a corporation, Plaintiff must identify the state or states in which it is
incorporated, as well as U-Haul’s principal place of business.
Finally, to establish diversity over a natural person, a complaint must include
allegations of the person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. Taylor v. Appleton, 30
F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A natural person’s citizenship is determined by his or her
“domicile,” or “the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment
. . . to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” McCormick
v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). As the
Complaint discloses only the residences of Defendants Cheryl Wermuth, Linda Kolumbus,
and Gary Kolumbus, rather than their states of citizenship, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
not alleged the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this case.

-3-

See

Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in
the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”); see also Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (“‘Domicile’ is not necessarily
synonymous with ‘residence[.]’”).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to establish diversity
of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over this action.2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall have until May 21, 2014, to provide the Court with sufficient information
so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 23rd day of April, 2014.

2

The party seeking to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional prerequisites are met. See McCormick, 293 F.3d at 1257;
see also Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (noting that the “pleader must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the
existence of jurisdiction”).
-4-

lc18
Copies:
Counsel of Record

-5-