Bank of America, N.A. v. Synovus Bank et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER directing that Plaintiff shall file, on or before May 15, 2017, an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of Defendant Kathleen B. Guy. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/1/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-1405-WSD
SYNOVUS BANK d/b/a THE BANK
OF NORTH GEORGIA,
KATHLEEN B. GUY, and
ANDERSEN, TATE & CARR, P.C.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed its
Complaint [1].
The Complaint asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-5). 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 the citizenship of Defendant Kathleen B. Guy (“Guy”).
The Complaint asserts that “Defendant Kathleen B. Guy . . . is a resident of
Gwinnett County, Georgia.” (Compl. ¶ 3). To show citizenship, however,
“[r]esidence alone is not enough.” Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
1269 (11th Cir. 2013). For United States citizens, “[c]itizenship is equivalent to
2
‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,” and “domicile requires both
residence in a state and ‘an intention to remain there indefinitely.’” Id. (quoting
McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiff is required to file an amended complaint properly alleging Guy’s
citizenship. Unless Plaintiff does so, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1268-69 (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 shall file, on or before
May 15, 2017, an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of
Defendant Kathleen B. Guy. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2017.
3
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?