Sorensen Companies, Inc. v. B.J. Burns Incorporated
Filing
3
ORDERED: Petitioner Sorensen Companies, Inc. shall have until October 20, 2017, 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 10/2/2017. (PTB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
SORENSEN COMPANIES, INC.,
Petitioner,
-vs-
Case No. 3:17-cv-1095-J-34JRK
B.J. BURNS INCORPORATED,
d/b/a Outlook International Electric,
Respondent.
______________________________________
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On September 29, 2017, Petitioner
Sorensen Companies, Inc. (Sorensen) filed its Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (Doc.
No. 1; Petition) in this Court. See generally Petition at 1. In the Petition, Sorensen asserts
that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id.
at 2. Specifically, Sorensen alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action
because it is a “corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Utah,” and
Respondent B.J. Burns Incorporated “is a registered Florida corporation with a principal
address of 4700 Biscayne Boulevard, [] Miami, Florida 33137.” Id. at 1. However, because
Sorensen has failed to disclose its principal place of business, its citizenship is not properly
alleged in the Petition. See Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15,
16 (5th Cir. 1979)1 (per curiam); see also Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 559 Fed.
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.
Appx. 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).
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
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 Sorensen is a “corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Utah”
is insufficient to disclose its citizenship – indeed, it does not disclose where Sorensen has
its principal place of business. See Hertz, 130 S.Ct at 1185.
-2-
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Sorensen an opportunity to provide the
Court with sufficient information to establish its citizenship and this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction over the instant action. Specifically, Sorensen should provide adequate
allegations regarding the location of its principal place of business. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Petitioner Sorensen Companies, Inc. shall have until October 20, 2017, 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, on October 2, 2017.
lc24
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
-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?