Steadfast Insurance Company v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 7

ORDERED: Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company shall have until January 24th, 2017, 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 12/30/2016.(PTB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, a
foreign corporation, a/s/o ACME
BARRICADES, L.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1574-J-34JBT

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
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, 1279-80 (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.”); see also Johansen v. Combustion
Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1328 n.4 (11th Cir. 1999). “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). On December 23, 2016, Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company (Progressive) timely filed its Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1; Notice)
removing this case from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida. See Notice at 1;
Complaint (Doc. No. 2; Complaint). In the Notice, Progressive asserts that this action “is one
which my be removed to this Court by [Progressive] pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b), in that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” Notice at 2. However, despite
this assertion, the Court is unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
“Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and
the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed amount, in this case $75,000.”
Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)). Additionally, 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)); see also Bel-Bel Int’l Corp. v. Comty. Bank
of Homestead, 162 F.3d 1101, 1106 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, Progressive represents that it
is “a foreign corporation[.]” Notice at 1. Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast) further
alleges that Progressive maintains its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.
Complaint ¶ 4. However, neither Progressive nor Steadfast discuss Progressive’s state of
incorporation. Thus, the Court is left with a defendant that is a citizen of Ohio and possibly
another state. Based on these allegations, the Court cannot find that complete diversity
exists between Progressive and Steadfast. As the allegations in the Notice and Complaint

-2-

do not sufficiently establish Progressive’s citizenship for diversity purposes, Progressive has
failed to provide the Court with sufficient information for the Court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over this action.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company shall have until January 24th,
2017, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has
jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on December 30, 2016.

lc24
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

1

When a case is removed from state to federal court, the removing party has the burden of
establishing that federal jurisdiction exists. See Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319.
-3-