Fraser v. USAA General Indemnity Company

Filing 4

ORDERED: Defendant shall have up to and including March 30, 2018, 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 3/19/2018. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
KARINE FRASER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-360-J-34JRK
vs.
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
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) (“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 March 13, 2018, Defendant USAA General Indemnity Company filed a notice of
removal notifying the Court of its intent to remove this action to the United States District
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 USAA

General Indemnity Company’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice) at 1-2. Specifically,
Defendant 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, the action is removable pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1441. See id. In support of this assertion, Defendant declares that “Plaintiff is
noted [sic] a resident of Florida, although her resident county is not mentioned in the
Complaint.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added). However, this allegation does not adequately
identify the citizenship of Plaintiff, and the Complaint (Doc. 2) does not offer sufficient
additional information to satisfy the Court’s 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. To
establish diversity over a natural person, a complaint must include allegations of the
person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. See 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).
Because the Notice discloses only Plaintiff’s residence, rather than her domicile or
state of citizenship, the Court finds that Defendant has not alleged the facts necessary to
establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact
that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor,
30 F.3d at 1367 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, although Defendant cites the McCormick
case for the proposition that “citizenship is equivalent to domicile,” see Notice at 2,

2 

Defendant fails to recognize that “‘[d]omicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with
‘residence.’” See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). As
such, Defendant’s allegation as to Plaintiff’s state of residency is insufficient.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Defendant an opportunity to establish
diversity of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant shall have up to and including March 30, 2018, to provide the Court with
sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 19th day of March, 2018.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

3