WOOLUM

v.

TIFFIN MOTORHOMES, INC.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F. 3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F. 3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). On August 31, 2020, Defendant Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. (Tiffin) filed a notice of removal, seeking to remove this case from the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Columbia County, Florida. See generally Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice). In the Notice, Tiffin asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “because this action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy, assuming the Plaintiffs prevail on their claims, exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” See id. ¶ 6. However, upon review of the Notice and the attached Complaint and Jury Demand (see Doc. 1-1; Underlying Complaint), the Court finds that Tiffin fails to allege sufficient facts to plausibly demonstrate that the parties are diverse. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d, 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Specifically, Tiffin does not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the Plaintiffs. See Notice ¶ 7. In the Notice, Tiffin merely alleges that “Plaintiffs are residents of Columbia County, Florida,” see id., and for support cites to the Underlying Complaint, in which Plaintiffs allege that they “are individuals who were, at all times relevant hereto, residing in Columbia County in the State

of Florida,” see Complaint ¶ 2. For a court to have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412. To establish diversity over a natural person, a party must include allegations of the person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. Taylor, 30 F. 3d at 1367. A natural person’s citizenship is determined by his or her “domicile,” or “the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment. . .to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” McCormick, 293 F. 3d at 1257-58 (quotation and citation omitted). “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish citizenship for a natural person.” Taylor, 30 F. 3d at 1367; Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (“Domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence[.]”). Thus, the Notice fails to present allegations sufficient to establish that the parties are diverse from each other. Without additional information regarding the citizenship of the Plaintiffs, the allegations presently before the Court are insufficient to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.’ Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendant Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. shall have until September 14, 2020, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on September 2, 2020.

dh Mead be United States District Judge

lc27 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties