MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. RASCALS BAR & GRILL INC et al

Filing 13

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file amended complaint not later than 3/19/2012 to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 3/7/2012. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
MOUNT VERNON
COMPANY,

FIRE

INSURANCE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-36 (HL)
v.
RASCALS BAR & GRILL, INC., JOSHUA
C. ALLEN, WILLIAM Q. TOUCHTON JR.,
TIM WILLIAMS, TARA VARNUM, TIMOTHY
KENNEDY, EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE ESTATE OF ISAIAH KENNEDY,
FOUNDERS
INSURANCE
COMPANY,
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
ORDER
On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed this matter in the Valdosta Division of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging diversity as
the basis for federal jurisdiction. Because federal courts have only limited
jurisdiction, part of the Court’s initial review process requires the Court to
determine whether a proper jurisdictional basis exists in each case. Thus, when a
plaintiff files a claim in federal court it is generally the plaintiff=s burden to allege
the specific facts necessary to establish jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem.
Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1332, diversity jurisdiction requires the legal matter
to exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and be
between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. ' 1332(a)(1).
An action for declaratory relief, such as this case, must independently
satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction requirements; the Declaratory Judgment
Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
' 2201(a) (authorizing district courts to grant declaratory relief in Aa case of actual
controversy within its jurisdiction@). Thus, in order for Plaintiff to maintain its action
for declaratory judgment in this Court, it must still satisfy the jurisdictional
prerequisites for filing an action in the federal district courts.
Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is proper in this Court because there is
diversity of citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy is greater
than $75,000. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Joshua Allen resides in Georgia;
that Defendant William Touchton Jr. resides in Georgia; that Defendant Tim
Williams resides in Georgia; that Defendant Tara Varnum resides in Florida; that
Defendant Timothy Kennedy resides in Florida; that Isaiah Kennedy died as a
resident of Florida; and that the Executor/Administrator for the Estate of Isaiah
Kennedy resides in Florida.
There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a Acitizen@ for diversity
purposes. Galva Foundry Co. v. Heiden, 924 F.2d 729, 730 (7th Cir. 1991)).
Federal courts interpret citizenship under ' 1332 as requiring a natural person to
2

be a United States citizen and be domiciled in a state. See, e.g., Las Vistas
Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1204 (M.D. Fla. 1991), aff=d, 13 F.3d
409 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, there are two necessary inquiries regarding
citizenship for diversity jurisdiction: (1) whether the person is a United States
citizen, and (2) whether the person is domiciled in a particular state.
Under the first inquiry, AAll persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.@ U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, ' 1. Regarding the second inquiry, domicileBsynonymous
with Astate citizenship@ in diversity jurisprudenceBgenerally requires two elements:
(1) physical presence in a state; and (2) the intent to make the state one=s home.
Duff v. Beaty, 804 F. Supp. 332, 334 (N.D. Ga. 1992). A complaint merely
alleging residency, as opposed to state citizenship or domicile, is insufficient to
invoke diversity jurisdiction. Id. Domicile is not always the same as residence, as
a person may reside in one place but be domiciled elsewhere. See Miss. Band of
Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 1608 (1989).
Therefore, a party must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively. Toms v.
Country Quality Meats, Inc., 610 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1980); Am. Motorists Ins.
Co. v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Duff,
804 F. Supp. at 334. Plaintiff=s mere allegations of residency are insufficient.
As a result of these deficiencies, this Court is unable to ascertain whether
complete diversity of citizenship exists and, therefore, the Complaint fails to
3

satisfy the prerequisites of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Court is of the
opinion that Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to correct the deficiencies noted.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have until March 19, 2012 in which to file an
amendment that conforms to the findings of this Order. Failure to plead the
necessary jurisdictional prerequisites in a timely manner will result in dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of March, 2012.

s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh

4