Bogan v. Progressive Express Insurance Company

Filing 4

ORDERED: Defendant Progressive shall have until October 3, 2016, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it is able to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/19/2016. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

PATRICK BOGAN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 3:16-cv-1168-J-34PDB

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On September 14, 2016, Defendant
Progressive Express Insurance Company (Progressive) filed its Notice of Removal (Doc. 1;
Notice), removing this case from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Duval County, Florida. See Notice at 1. In the Notice, Progressive asserts that this Court
has jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. at 3.
Specifically, Progressive alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action
because Plaintiff Patrick Bogan is a “citizen of the State of Florida,” and Progressive “is a
foreign corporation . . . having its principal place of business in the State of Ohio.” See id.
at 2. Because Progressive has failed to disclose its place of incorporation, Progressive’s
citizenship is not properly alleged in the Notice. See Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am.
Employers’ Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979)1; see also Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co. v.

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of
business on September 30, 1981.

Thomas, 559 F. App’x 803, 805 n.5 (11th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over the action is not established.
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 University of South Ala.
v. American 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).
Federal district courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over cases involving citizens
of different states where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
$75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319
(11th Cir. 2001); Kirkland, 243 F.3d at 1280. The party removing an action originally filed
in state court to federal court bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists. See
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319; Kirkland 243 F.3d at 1281, 1281 n.5.
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, “[t]he 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
-2-

where it has its principal place of business.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct 1181, 1185
(2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)) (emphasis removed). Accordingly, the allegation
that Progressive “is a foreign corporation . . . having its principal place of business in the
State of Ohio” is insufficient to disclose Progressive’s citizenship—indeed, it does not
disclose where Progressive has been incorporated. See Hertz, 130 S.Ct at 1185.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Progressive an opportunity to identify its
citizenship, and that this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the instant action.
Progressive should provide adequate allegations regarding its place of incorporation.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendant Progressive shall have until October 3, 2016, to provide the Court with
sufficient information so that it is able to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this
action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 19th day of September, 2016.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-