The Zodiac Group, Inc. et al v. Axis Surplus Insurance Company
Filing
35
ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to File Jurisdictional Statement. Statement due by 12/13/2012 at noon. See attached ORDER for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/12/12. (jky)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-80299-Civ-SCOLA
THE ZODIAC GROUP, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER REQUIRING STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon independent review of the record. Plaintiffs
Zodiac Group, Inc. (“Zodiac”) and David and Daniel Felger have sued Defendant Axis Insurance
Co. (“Axis”) in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Compl. ¶¶ 1-5. Because the
Complaint’s diversity allegations are wanting, the Court will require the Plaintiffs to file a
jurisdictional statement forthwith.
“As federal courts, we are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving our power solely from
Article III of the Constitution and from the legislative acts of Congress,” and “we are bound to
assure ourselves of jurisdiction even if the parties fail to raise the issue.” Harris v. United States,
149 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 1998). In addition, “a jurisdictional defect cannot be waived by
the parties and may be raised at any point during litigation.” Allen v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., 155 F. App’x 480, 481 (11th Cir. 2005).
“A district court has diversity jurisdiction when the parties are citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Shanyfelt v. Wachovia Mortg. FSB, 439 F.
App’x 793, 793 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). Diversity must be complete,
meaning that all plaintiffs to an action must be of different citizenship than all defendants.
See Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010).
“The burden for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the
claim.” Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005).
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Zodiac is a Florida corporation doing business in
Palm Beach County, Florida; Plaintiffs David and Daniel Felger are residents of Florida; and
Defendant Axis is an Illinois corporation doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Compl. ¶¶ 1-4. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is considered a citizen of its
state of incorporation and of the state where it has its principal place of business.1
See MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005); see also
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Because the Complaint does not address the principal place of business for
either Zodiac or Axis, the allegations are insufficient. Likewise, it is not enough to allege that
the Felgers are merely “residents” of Florida. It is the citizenship, or domicile,2 of the parties
that is relevant under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a)(1), not their place of residence. See Molinos Valle Del
Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Domicile is not
synonymous with residence; one may temporarily reside in one location, yet retain domicile in a
previous residence.”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are hereby directed to file a Jurisdictional Statement
by December 13, 2012 at noon, setting forth the appropriate jurisdictional information so that
the Court may determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 12, 2012.
________________________________
ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record
1
In the Eleventh Circuit, a corporation’s principal place of business is determined using the “total
activities test.” See MacGinnitie, 420 F.3d at 1239 (explaining that the “total activities” test “combines
the ‘place of activities’ test and the ‘nerve center’ test and that “[u]nder the ‘place of activities’ test, the
location of the majority of the corporation’s sales or production activities is its principal place of
business,” while “[u]nder the ‘nerve center’ test, the location of the corporate offices is generally the
principal place of business”).
2
For diversity purposes, with respect to individuals, “citizenship” is synonymous with “domicile.” See
Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954).
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?