AJ BROWN
v.
ALEX WAGNER, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court dismissed plaintiff AJ Brown's diversity action against multiple defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Brown and at least two defendants were citizens of the same state (Florida), thus failing to satisfy the complete diversity requirement.
The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because complete diversity does not exist. For diversity jurisdiction to be proper, each defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff, and here the plaintiff and at least two defendants are all Florida citizens, failing to meet this requirement.
[1] Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.
[2] Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“For diversity jurisdiction to exist, each defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff.”
Establishes the complete diversity requirement for diversity jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff AJ Brown filed a complaint asserting state law claims for breach of contract against defendants including Alex Wagner, Zain Yaqub, and Kyle …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Citizenship For Diversity Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte [fn 1]. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff AJ Brown filed his Complaint against Defendants asserting state law claims for, among other things, breach of contract. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at ¶ 10). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, each defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff. See Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 292 F. 3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff “bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence . . ." of diversity
jurisdiction. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Upon review of the Complaint, Plaintiff is not diverse from each defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he, Defendant Zain Yaqub, and Defendant Kyle Couturier are citizens of Florida. (Doc 1. at ¶¶ 2, 4, 6). Because the parties are not diverse, Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to show that this Court has diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate any pending deadlines and motions and close the file. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 14, 2025.
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: "Federal courts ‘are obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F. 3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Riley v. Merrill Lynch, 292 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2002)