Doolin v. American Optical Corporation et al

Filing 3

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until July 11, 2016, 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 6/27/2016. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
STACEY DOOLIN, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of RICHARD
E. DOOLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB

AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, et
al.,
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 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).
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 22, 2016, by filing two-count complaint. See
Plaintiff’s Wrongful Death Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon

review of the Complaint, it appears Plaintiff relies on diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, as the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See
Complaint ¶ 6. However, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege the citizenship of Plaintiff and
Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC “is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York.” Id. ¶ 16. In addition,
Plaintiff includes allegations as to the residence of the Plaintiff decedent prior to his death,
as well as the residence of his personal representative. See id. ¶ 5. However, these
allegations are insufficient to establish the citizenship of those parties, and thus the Court
is unable to determine whether complete diversity exists in this action
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. Relevant to this
action, “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company
is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020,
1022 (11th Cir. 2004). A corporation, however, “‘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, 559 U.S. 77, 81 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1))
(emphasis omitted). Thus, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited liability company
(“LLC”), a party must list the citizenship of each of the LLC’s members, but to allege the
citizenship of a corporation, a party must identify the states of incorporation and principal
place of business. See Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1021-22; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Here,
Plaintiff identifies Defendant Pneumo Abex as an LLC, but incorrectly alleges its citizenship
as though it were a corporation. See Complaint ¶ 16. As such, clarification is necessary to

-2-

establish this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff must specify whether Pneumo Abex
is an LLC or a corporation. If, indeed, Pneumo Abex is a corporation, the information
contained in the Complaint adequately alleges that it is a citizen of Delaware and New York.
However, if Pneumo Abex is, in fact, an LLC, Plaintiff must establish the citizenship of each
of its members1
When an individual acts in a representative capacity for one who is deceased, that
individual is deemed to be a citizen of the state of which the deceased was a citizen at the
time of death. Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph County, 22 F.3d 1559, 1562 n.1 (11th Cir.
1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). Thus, “[w]here an estate is a party, the citizenship that
counts for diversity purposes is that of the decedent, and [he] is deemed to be a citizen of
the state in which [he] was domiciled at the time of [his] death.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
505 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007). However, 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 residence of the decedent prior to his
death, rather than his state of citizenship, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the
facts necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over this case. See Taylor, 30

1

Plaintiff is advised that each member’s citizenship must be properly alleged, be it an individual,
corporation, LLC, or other entity.
-3-

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[.]’”).
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 diversity jurisdiction over this
action.2 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall have until July 11, 2016, 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 June 27, 2016.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

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-