Venson et al v. Camping World, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal and 2 Complaint. Defendant Winebago Industries shall have up to and including April 21st, 2017, to provide the Court with additional information demonstrating that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/4/2017. (DS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

MARK VENSON,
HELEN VENSON
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00042-J-34PDB
v.
CAMPING WORLD, INC.
WINEBAGO INDUSTRIES,
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, 1279–80 (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) (“It 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).
On January 13, 2017, Defendant Winebago Industries (Winebago) filed a notice of
removal notifying the Court of its intent to remove this action to the United States District

1

Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, and purporting to set forth the
facts establishing that the Court has jurisdiction over this action.

See Defendant

Winebago’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice), at 1–3. Specifically, Winebago asserts
that the Court has jurisdiction because there is complete diversity of citizenship between
the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1332, and therefore, this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See
id. at 2. Additionally, Winebago contends that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
any other claims asserted in the complaint, see Complaint (Doc. 2; Complaint), pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c). In support of its assertions, Winebago declares that “as set forth
in the Complaint, … Plaintiffs, Mark Venson and Helen Venson are citizens of the State of
Florida.” Id. at 2, ¶ 3. However, although Winebago asserts that Plaintiffs Mark Venson
and Helen Venson (collectively, Plaintiffs) are citizens of Florida, a review of the complaint
discloses that Plaintiffs merely “own property in Duval County, Florida, and purchased a
recreational vehicle … in St. Johns County Florida.” See Complaint ¶ 1.1 This allegation
does not adequately identify Plaintiffs’ citizenship, and thus, the Court is without sufficient
information to satisfy its jurisdictional inquiry.
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. A natural
person’s citizenship is determined by her “domicile,” or “the place of h[er] true, fixed, and
permanent home and principal establishment . . . to which [s]he has the intention of
returning whenever [s]he is absent therefrom.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254,

1

In fact, Exhibit A of the Notice suggests that Plaintiffs may be citizens of Nevada. See Notice, Ex.
A: W. Scott Powell E-mail.

2

1257–58 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). Because the Notice alleges
Plaintiffs’ citizenship by citing to the Complaint, which discloses only that Plaintiffs own
property in Florida, rather than their domicile or state of citizenship, the Court finds that
Winebago has not alleged the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this
case.2 In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Winebago an opportunity to establish
diversity of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action.3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Defendant Winebago Industries shall have up to and including April 21st, 2017, to
provide the Court with additional information demonstrating that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 4th day of April, 2017.

2

Indeed, carefully ascertaining the citizenship of the parties and whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action is more than just an academic exercise, as is evident from two recent Eleventh
Circuit cases. See Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp of Am., __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 816224, at **1-2
(11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (vacating summary judgment order after three years of litigation where court
determined on appeal that the pleadings below had not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of a defendant
limited liability company, and upon further inquiry, found that the defendant limited liability company had a
non-diverse member); see also Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., __ F.3d ___, 2017 WL
1046103, at *2, 7 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) (discussing whether sanctions were warranted in a case where
summary judgment was reversed on appeal after the appellate court discovered that the pleadings did not
sufficiently allege the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, leading to the realization that there was no diversity
jurisdiction) (“While the requirements of diversity jurisdiction in this scenario are complicated, they are the
law. No party in this case acted with bad intentions, but the result was a colossal waste of time and effort.
We trust that the damage done to the parties' credibility, finances, and time is enough of a sanction to curb
their conduct and to serve as a warning to future diversity jurisdiction litigants. In the end, when the parties
do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in
the 21st century.”).
3

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 v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“noting that the “pleader must
affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.”).

3

lc25
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

4