BROWN et al v. SPELLS et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing Plaintiffs to file with the Court evidence showing existence of diversity. Deadline for filing is 8/1/2011. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 7/11/2011. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
DUNSTON BROWN and JOSEPHINE :
BROWN,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHNNY RAY SPELLS, et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
_______________________________ :

Civil Action No.
7:11-cv-91 (HL)

ORDER
The Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on July 1, 2011, alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered
injuries due to a car accident occurring between Defendant Johnny Spells’ vehicle and
the Plaintiffs’ rental vehicle. The complaint further asserts that Defendant Enterprise
Leasing Company of Georgia, LLC (“Enterprise”) issued an automobile insurance
policy to the Plaintiffs, but failed to perform under the policy when it did not pay the
Plaintiffs’ medical expenses and benefits. The Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se.1
The asserted basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is diversity
jurisdiction.
Consistent with this Court’s responsibility to examine the subject matter
jurisdiction of the cases that come before it, the Court has reviewed the complaint to
determine whether the diversity jurisdictional requirements in this case have been
1

They have paid the entire $350 filing fee, so they are not seeking to proceed in
forma pauperis.

satisfied. See Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000)
(requiring that a district court must always answer the question of whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case, even if no party raises the question of
jurisdiction by motion)
Having concluded that the requirements have not been satisfied, the Court
orders the Plaintiffs to come forward with evidence showing that diversity jurisdiction
is present.
I.

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Diversity jurisdiction is present when the dispute is between citizens of different

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A.

Diversity of Citizenship

A party must distinctly and affirmatively plead citizenship. Tucker v. Thomasville
Toyota, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (M.D. Ga. 2008) (citations omitted). A complaint
merely alleging residency, as opposed to state citizenship or domicile, may be
insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 1381 (citations omitted). This is
because domicile is not always the same as residence, as a person may reside in one
place but be domiciled elsewhere. Id.
A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any state in which it has been
incorporated and the state where it has its one principal place of business. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1). The citizenship of a limited liability company is not determined in the
2

same manner as a corporation. In the Eleventh Circuit, the citizenship of a limited
liability company, as an artificial, unincorporated entity, is determined for diversity
jurisdiction purposes by the citizenship of all the members composing the organization.
Rolling Greens MHP v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th
Cir. 2004). Thus, a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member
of the company is a citizen. Id. at 1022. And, therefore, like a corporation, a limited
liability company could be deemed a citizen of more than one state.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to plead that the Plaintiffs are citizens of New York;
instead it only alleges that they are residents of New York. The complaint fails to
allege that Defendant Johnny Ray Spell is a citizen of Georgia, stating only his state
of residency. The complaint does not allege where Defendant Johnny’s Towing Inc. is
incorporated or where its principle place of business is. As for Defendant Enterprise,
the complaint only states that it is a licensed company in the state of Georgia. The
complaint has not listed the citizenship of all the members of the limited liability
company.
The Plaintiffs may file evidence establishing the citizenship of the parties. If the
Plaintiffs do so and the evidence shows that no Plaintiff is of the same citizenship of
any Defendant, then the Court will find that there is complete diversity between the
parties.

3

B.

Amount in Controversy

The Plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain any assertions that they incurred
damages in excess of $75,000. The only allegations regarding damages are that they
suffered “bodily injury as well as shock to their nervous system.” The Plaintiffs are
“sick, sore, lame, and disabled.” They have incurred hospital expenses. They have
not shown what medical expenses and benefits Defendant Enterprise has failed to pay.
Generally, the court should defer to the value the plaintiff places on his claim.
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003).
Ordinarily, “[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the
jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” Id. at 807 (citation omitted). “However, where
jurisdiction is based on a claim for indeterminate damages, the Red Cab Co. ‘legal
certainty’ test gives way, and the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim on which it is
basing jurisdiction meets the jurisdictional minimum.” Id. Indeterminate damages are
those that are not given a dollar amount. Id. (“McKinnon did not and has not placed any
dollar amount on the various damages it is seeking under its bad faith claim. Therefore,
the damages McKinnon prays for under the bad faith claim are indeterminate.”).
To prove damages by the preponderance of the evidence the party seeking
federal jurisdiction must do more than conclusorily assert that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Failure to quantify the amount of loss can constitute
4

speculation, which is insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden. Bradley v. Kelly
Servs., Inc., 224 Fed. App’x 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2007).
In this case, the Plaintiff is asking for an indeterminate amount in damages
because they have not placed a dollar value on any of their claims. Thus, it is now
incumbent upon them to come forward with evidence sufficient to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that their claims meet the jurisdictional minimum.
To show the damages they have suffered, the Plaintiffs are to present evidence
on the amount of their claimed damages. If they fail to support their claims with
evidence on the amount of the damages, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.2
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are ordered to file with this Court, no later than August
1, 2011 evidence sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their
claims exceed more than $75,000 and that complete diversity exists. The Plaintiffs
shall file a brief with exhibits. The Defendants have until August 15, 2011 to respond.
If the Plaintiffs wish to file a reply, then they must seek the Court’s permission to do so.

2

Sometimes the allegations in a complaint for indeterminate damages facially
establish the jurisdictional requirements. In those cases, a Court relies on its judicial
experience and common sense to determine that the claims satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement. Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2010).
In this case, however, the allegations in the complaint lead the Court nowhere. The
possible range of damages is large. The Court cannot tell from the complaint how bad
the injuries are. To estimate the amount of damages would be to speculate. Thus, the
Court is providing the Plaintiffs an opportunity to support their claims with facts showing
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

5

The Court’s Rules 16/26 Order will not issue until the Court determines it has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of July, 2011.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
lmc

6