ROLLISON v. Auto Owners Insurance Company
ORDERED: Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company shall have until September 25, 2020, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/14/2020. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
R.L. ROLLISON, JR.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-1018-J-34JRK
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 Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see
also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). 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”). “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 September 10, 2020, Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company filed a
Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice), asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Notice ¶ 2. Auto-Owners alleges that
diversity jurisdiction is proper because this is an action between citizens of different
states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. ¶ 3. In the Notice, AutoOwners asserts that Plaintiff R.L. Rollison, Jr.’s “principal establishment” is in Florida. Id.
¶ 6. As to its own citizenship, Auto-Owners notes an allegation in the Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 1-4) that Auto-Owners is a “foreign corporation,” and adds
that “RaceTrac is a corporation incorporated in the State of Michigan with its principal
place of business in East Lansing, Michigan.” See Notice ¶ 7. RaceTrac, however, is not
a party to this case. The Notice does not address the state of incorporation and principal
place of business of the actual Defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company. See Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010) (“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.’” (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis removed))). Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine
whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Auto-Owners an opportunity to provide
the Court with additional information to establish its citizenship, and this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction over the instant action. Accordingly, it is
Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company shall have until September 25,
2020, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it
has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on September 14, 2020.
Counsel of Record
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?