Harvey Prince Organics Inc. v. Sullivan et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff shall, on or before June 16, 2017, file an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of the parties. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/1/2017. (bgt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
HARVEY PRINCE ORGANICS
INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:17-cv-1910-WSD

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, MARY
DECELLES, and JACQUELINE
SULLIVAN,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff Harvey Prince Organics Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its
Complaint [1], asserting state-law claims against Defendants Michael Sullivan,
Mary Decelles, and Jacqueline Sullivan (collectively, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (Compl. ¶ 2). 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)).
Plaintiff’s Complaint insufficiently alleges Defendants’ citizenship. The
Complaint states that Defendants are “Georgia Resident[s].” (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).
These allegations are insufficient to show Defendants’ 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, 735 F.3d at 1269.
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, 735 F.3d at 1268-69 (district court
must dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the pleadings
or record evidence establish jurisdiction). The Court will not allow Plaintiff any
further opportunities to amend its Complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.

3

For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, on or before
June 16, 2017, file an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of
the parties.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2017.

4