Dunkel v. Richards
Filing
5
ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until August 31, 2015, 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 8/4/2015. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PAMELA DUNKEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 3:15-cv-945-J-34PDB
JOSEPH RICHARDS,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
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”).
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on July 31, 2015, by filing a five-count Complaint (Doc.
1). Although Plaintiff does not specifically assert a basis for this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, it appears Plaintiff intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Complaint ¶¶ 1-3. Plaintiff alleges that she is a “resident” of Florida,
Defendant Joseph Richards is a “resident” of Virginia, and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. See id. ¶¶ 1-3. However, these allegations are insufficient to establish
diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to identify the citizenship of either party.1
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 Plaintiff’s allegations. As the Complaint discloses only the residences
of Plaintiff and Defendant, 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. 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 Miss. Band of Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (“‘Domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with
‘residence[.]’”).
1
The Court notes that in the body of the Complaint Plaintiff also refers to “the defendant, Dawn
Hamilton.” See Complaint ¶ 4. However, Plaintiff does not list Dawn Hamilton in the caption of the Complaint,
and she is not a party to this lawsuit. Rather, it appears Plaintiff sued Dawn Hamilton in a separate action. See
Pamela Dunkel v. Dawn Hamilton, Case No. 3:15-cv-949-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. filed July 31, 2015).
-2-
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
ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall have until August 31, 2015, 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 this 4th day of August, 2015.
lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro se party
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”).
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?