Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company v. Parsons et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER directing that Plaintiff Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company shall file, on or before September 6, 2016, an amended complaint properly alleging its citizenship. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/23/16. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-2951-WSD
JANNIS LAVERNE PARSONS, and
MOFFITT EDUCATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
COVERED BRIDGE
MONTESSORI SCHOOL,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company
(“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [1] (“Complaint”).
The Complaint asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 6). Federal courts “have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a
challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006).
The Eleventh Circuit consistently has held that “a court should inquire into
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the
proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire
into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of
S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In this case, the
Complaint raises only questions of state law and the Court only could have
diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
“Diversity jurisdiction, as a general rule, requires complete diversity—every
plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Palmer Hosp. Auth. of Randolph
Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994). “Citizenship for diversity purposes is
determined at the time the suit is filed.” MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC,
420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005). “The burden to show the jurisdictional fact
of diversity of citizenship [is] on the . . . plaintiff.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
505 F.3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting
Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359 F.2d 954, 956 (5th Cir. 1966)).
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction
because it fails to identify Plaintiff’s citizenship. The Complaint asserts that
Plaintiff “is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and duly
authorized to conduct business in Georgia.” (Compl. ¶ 1). This is insufficient
because a corporation is a “citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has
2
been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place
of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added); see Wylie v. Red Bull N.
Am., Inc., 627 F. App’x 755, 757 (11th Cir. 2015) (“For diversity jurisdiction
purposes, a corporation is a citizen of every State by which it has been
incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”). While
Plaintiff alleges its place of incorporation, Plaintiff does not identify its principal
place of business.
Plaintiff is required to file an amended complaint properly alleging its
citizenship. Unless Plaintiff does so, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Travaglio v. Am. Express. Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the district court must dismiss an action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the pleadings or record evidence
establishes jurisdiction).
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance
Company shall file, on or before September 6, 2016, an amended complaint
properly alleging its citizenship. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this
action.
3
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2016.
4
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?