Holloway et al v. AA Portable Power Corporation et al

Filing 2

ORDERED: Plaintiffs shall have until February 5, 2014, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 1/22/2015. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
THOMAS HOLLOWAY, an individual, and
REBECCA HOLLOWAY, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 3:15-cv-46-J-34PDB

AA PORTABLE POWER CORPORATION,
d/b/a WWW.BATTERYSPACE.COM, a
California corporation, and GUANGZHOU
GREAT POWER, ENERGY &
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the People's
Republic of China,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction.
See Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). 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”).
On January 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (Doc. 1), asserting that the Court
has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Complaint ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs assert that diversity jurisdiction exists because there is diversity of citizenship

between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Guangzhou Great Power Energy & Technology Co., Ltd. is
“a corporation incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China with its
principal place of business in Panyu, Guangzhou, China,” and that Defendant AA Portable
Power Corporation, d/b/a www.batteryspace.com, is “a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.” Id. ¶¶ 2-3.
Plaintiffs also allege that “at all times relevant to this cause of action, [they] have been
residents of Niceville, Okaloosa County, Florida.” Id. ¶ 1. However, Plaintiffs fails to identify
their citizenship. See generally id.
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. 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).
The Court’s review of the Complaint discloses that the requisite diversity of citizenship
is not apparent from Plaintiffs’ allegations. As the Complaint discloses only Plaintiffs’
residence, rather than their state of citizenship, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged
the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. See Taylor, 30 F.3d
at 1367 (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to

-2-

establish diversity for a natural person.”); see also Miss. 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 Plaintiffs an opportunity to establish
diversity of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over this
action.1 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs shall have until February 5, 2014, to provide the Court with sufficient
information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on January 22, 2015.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

1

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”).
-3-