Everest National Insurance Company v. Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER -- The Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before August 8, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/1/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-551-Orl-37GJK

AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF
THE UNITED STATES; and SARAH
POWERS-BARNHARD,
Defendants.
ORDER
Today, as on nearly every day, the Court turns to address a new civil action that
fails to allege sufficient facts to support subject matter jurisdiction. 1 In the hope that
perhaps—just perhaps—members of the Bar will read, mark, learn, inwardly digest,2
and—most importantly—apply this fundamental principle, this reminder:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction!
As a consequence of this constitutional edict, subject matter jurisdiction must be properly
alleged in every complaint and notice of removal filed in this Court. 3 If it is not, then the

1In

just the first seven months of 2017, the Bar’s failure to meet this minimum
jurisdictional pleading standard has required the Undersigned to dismiss, remand, or
issue show cause orders in 41 civil actions.
2See BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, Proper 28 (1662).
3Federal courts have the “power to decide only certain type of cases.” See Morrison
v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Federal courts also have the
obligation, in every case, to “zealously insure that jurisdiction exists.” See Smith v. GTE
Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
-1-

Court must summarily dismiss or remand the action to state court. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading challenge for the Bar.4
Time and again, counsel’s submissions improperly allege an individual’s residency
instead of citizenship and an unincorporated business entity’s (LLCs, e.g.) “principal
place of business” instead of the identity and citizenship of every individual member.
This failure to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the jurisdictional
requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of judicial resources that cannot
continue. 5
This case is yet another example of counsel’s failure to appreciate the fact that, in
order to proceed in federal court, the litigant must establish subject matter jurisdiction by
pleading facts that support it. In compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, if you are unsure about how to properly allege citizenship, do some basic
research. Pending review of the applicable law, here are a few hints.
►

DO NOT allege the “residence” of a party—citizenship
is what counts.

When an action is brought under § 1332, the Court must be sure that the plaintiff
has alleged that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring “a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” in every complaint).
5 The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest
district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent screening
cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of deficiencies, then
rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause orders is time that could
and should be devoted to the substantive work of the Court.
4

-2-

►

DO NOT allege that you do not know the citizenship
of a party.

►

DO NOT allege jurisdictional facts “on information
and belief.”

►

DO know the differences between an incorporated
entity and an LLC or a partnership for diversity
purposes. 6

►

DO understand that until you have drilled down to a
real person or incorporated entity and alleged their
citizenship, you have not arrived.

►

DO know what constitutes sufficient proof of the
amount in controversy requirement.

►

DO allege a basis of jurisdiction for every claim
asserted—not just for the case as a whole.

Here, Plaintiff asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claims
“[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332” (Doc. 13, ¶ 4), but it has not provided the necessary factual
allegations to support its jurisdictional assertion. To the contrary, Plaintiff has improperly
alleged, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Defendant Sarah Powers-Barnhard is a
“citizen of Florida.” (See id. ¶ 3.) Repleading is required to cure this deficiency.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

6The

citizenship of an incorporated business entity turns on the entity’s State of
incorporation and the State where it has its principal place of business. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The citizenship of an “unincorporated business association or
entity” depends on the citizenship of its individual members. See Scuotto v. Lakeland Tours,
LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1393, 2013 WL 6086046, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2013).
-3-

(1)

The Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

(2)

On or before August 8, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that
properly establishes the grounds for the Court’s exercise of subject matter
jurisdiction.

(3)

Absent timely compliance with the requirements of this Order, this action
will be CLOSED without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 1, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-