Griggs v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) et al
Filing
2
ORDER directing that Plaintiff, on or before January 27, 2017, shall file an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of the parties. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/11/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JOYCE M. GRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-64-WSD
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Joyce M. Griggs (“Plaintiff”) filed her
Complaint [1], asserting state-law claims against Defendants USAA Casualty
Insurance Company (“USAA”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing Company, LLC
(“Ocwen”) (together, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (Compl. ¶ 1). 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,
Plaintiff’s 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)). To
show citizenship, “[r]esidence alone is not enough.” Travaglio v. Am. Express
Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). For United States citizens,
“[c]itizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,”
and “domicile requires both residence in a state and ‘an intention to remain there
2
indefinitely.’” Id. (quoting McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th
Cir. 2002)). A limited liability company, unlike a corporation, is a citizen of any
state of which one of its members is a citizen, not of the state where the company
was formed or has it principal office. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast
SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). “To sufficiently
allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a party must list
the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company . . . .” Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint insufficiently alleges Plaintiff’s citizenship. The
Complaint states that Plaintiff is a “resident” of Georgia. (Compl. ¶ 3). This
allegation is insufficient to show Plaintiff’s citizenship, because “[c]itizenship is
equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,” and “domicile
requires both residence in a state and ‘an intention to remain there indefinitely.’”
Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff’s Complaint also insufficiently alleges the citizenship of Defendant
USAA. The Complaint alleges that USAA is “headquarter[ed] . . . at 9800
Fredericksburg Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78288 . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 7). This
allegation is insufficient to show USAA’s citizenship, because a corporation is a
citizen both of the state in which the company was formed and in which it
maintains its principal office. See Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022.
3
Plaintiff’s Complaint also insufficiently alleges the citizenship of Ocwen.
The Complaint alleges that Ocwen “is based out of West Palm Beach, Florida and
is a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Group. [Ocwen]’s Corporate headquarters is
located at: 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409.”
(Compl. ¶ 9). Ocwen is a limited liability company. A limited liability company,
unlike a corporation, is a citizen of any state of which one of its members is a
citizen, not of the state where the company was formed or has it principal office.
See Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022. “To sufficiently allege the citizenships of
these unincorporated business entities, a party must list the citizenships of all the
members of the limited liability company . . . .” Id.
To determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over this action, the
Complaint must allege more specific information regarding the citizenship of the
parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff is required to file an amended complaint properly
alleging the citizenship of each party. The Court notes it is required to dismiss this
action unless Plaintiff provides the required supplement alleging sufficient facts to
show the Court’s jurisdiction. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013) (district court must dismiss an action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction unless the pleadings or record evidence establish jurisdiction).
4
The Court will not allow Plaintiff any further opportunities to amend its Complaint
to properly allege jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff, on or before January 27, 2017,
shall file an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of the
parties.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2017.
5
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?