Citizenship For Diversity Purposes

119 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• McNELLO v. John B. Kelly, Inc.
  283 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1960-09-15 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions on negligence were fundamentally flawed and constituted reversible error, despite the defendant's failure to object. The court also affirmed the dismissal of a third-party claim.
• Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott
  660 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 67×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal due to the untimely filing, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both the Illinois action (no federal question or diversity jurisdiction) and the NEC action (no actua
• Stine v. Moore
  213 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's domicile and citizenship had changed to Louisiana, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Carlsberg Res. Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  554 F.2d 1254· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-04 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge argues that the citizenship of limited partners should not be counted for diversity jurisdiction purposes, as they are not proper parties to suits against the partnership under state law.
• Janzen v. Wilber W. Goos and Ivan Gottula
  302 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the plaintiff's change of domicile to Kansas, with the intent to reside there permanently, established her citizenship in Kansas, thereby creating diversity jurisdiction.
• Krisel v. Duran
  386 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-06 ·cited 28×
  The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of Puerto Rico is not a citizen of Puerto Rico for diversity jurisdiction purposes, even if it engages in proprietary functions.
• Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  457 F.2d 1320· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 26×
  A district court may determine jurisdictional facts without an evidentiary hearing if the plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Rogers v. Bates
  431 F.2d 16· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The appointment of a conservator for a living person solely to manufacture federal diversity jurisdiction is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1359, and the citizenship of the conservator is disregarded in such cases.
• Russell v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. & Consumers Pub. Power Dist.
  325 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, as her testimony indicated she was a citizen of Nebraska when the suit was filed.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co. v. Leyron Alvin Greene
  606 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-11 ·cited 16×
  The 1964 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), which limits diversity jurisdiction in direct actions against insurers, does not apply to actions brought by a liability insurer.
• Patrician Towers Owners, Inc. v. Charles M. Fairchild (Individually and as general partner
  513 F.2d 216· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the plaintiffs' standing and the court's jurisdiction, requiring a remand.
• Jim L. Napper and wife v. Anderson
  500 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were estopped by judgment from relitigating the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it had been previously determined in the Arkansas federal court.
• Seideman v. Anne Hamilton
  275 F.2d 224· 3d Cir.· 1960-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the question of diversity to a jury and in concluding there was a lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Mason v. Am. Express Co. & Howard L. Clark
  334 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-02 ·cited 12×
  An unincorporated joint stock association organized under New York law is considered a citizen of New York for the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Broyles v. Bayless
  878 F.2d 1400· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an uninsured motorist carrier's citizenship should not be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes when it has not exercised substantial control over the litigation and its liability is contingent and indirect.
• Wilsey v. Charles F. Eddingfield, M.D.
  780 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The citizenship of beneficiaries, not a nominal representative, determines diversity jurisdiction when the representative has no independent stake in the outcome under state law.
• Bess Caroline Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co.
  872 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The majority held that allegations of negligence against a jack-up barge in navigable waters lacked a sufficient maritime nexus to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.
• Wilfredo Rodriguez-Diaz v. Marcelo Sierra-Martinez
  853 F.2d 1027· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The majority's decision to apply New York law to determine the plaintiff's domicile, despite his minority status under Puerto Rican law, is criticized.
• Miller v. Grgurich
  763 F.2d 372· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 8×
  Diversity jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal, and the burden is on the removing party to establish it.
• Mrs. Veronica Fannaly Williams v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  468 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term "insured" in the diversity statute's amendment includes omnibus insureds, thus precluding diversity jurisdiction when the plaintiff and the omnibus insured share citizenship.
• The N. Tr. Co. v. Bunge Corp.
  899 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied because the citizenship of the individual sellers, not their representative, must be considered, and not all sellers met the complete diversity and amount in controversy requirements.
• Syms v. Castleton Indus., Inc.
  470 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 5×
• Hancock v. Target Corp.
  2021 WL 1541511· M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship for individuals and entities.
• Pallazola v. Carolyn Rucker, R.N.
  797 F.2d 1116· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly found that diversity jurisdiction had been improperly manufactured by appointing an administratrix for the purpose of creating diversity, and thus the action was properly dismissed.
• Oliney v. Gardner
  771 F.2d 856· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the second lawsuit as duplicative and barred by res judicata, as the plaintiff attempted to circumvent jurisdictional rules by filing a second, identical suit without informing the court.
• Kaiser v. Carroll O. Loomis
  391 F.2d 1007· 6th Cir.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 4×
  An American citizen born in a state and having parents domiciled there retains that state citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, even while residing abroad, unless they acquire a new domicile.
• Sligh v. DOE
  596 F.2d 1169· 4th Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's determination of diversity of citizenship was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the judgment.
• Libby v. United States
  535 F. Supp. 667· M.D. Fla.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the "forthwith" service requirement under the Suits in Admiralty Act is a procedural requirement superseded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j), and that the plaintiff's 24-day delay in service was reasonable and thus "forthwith."
• Rosetta J. Walker v. Fid. Ins. Agency, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that the defendant insurance agent was a citizen of Utah, not Florida, thus establishing complete diversity and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• AJ Brown v. Wagner
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  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 require
• Latiesha Braxton v. Newrez LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-10
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question or diversity of citizenship.
• Vireo Sys., Inc. v. Keyview Labs, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-10
  The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege citizenship of all parties to establish diversity jurisdiction, and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient.
• Lindberg v. Universal Life Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's petition did not adequately allege diversity of citizenship, which is required for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Potter v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because it was filed within 30 days of receiving 'other paper' that clarified the plaintiff's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied.
• Parsons v. Changco
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The Eleventh Circuit remanded this diversity jurisdiction case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff adequately alleged his state citizenship and domicile. The district court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of d
• Neiman v. AllState Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-26
  The court recommended remanding the case because the notice of removal failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, and the defendant did not cure these deficiencies.
• Goldsberry v. Davol Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-06
  The district court addresses a jurisdictional defect in a diversity action by ordering the plaintiff to clarify his domicile as of the complaint filing date, as assertions of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction under federal law.
• Harkins v. Knipp
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-05
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the defendant did not adequately plead the citizenship of one of the parties and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Manzini v. Cypress
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-23
  Nicolas Manzini, a former lawyer, sued Miccosukee Tribe leaders Talbert Cypress and Lucas Osceola in federal court alleging they violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and defrauded casino patrons by manipulating cash-out kiosks to avoid refunding coin change. The court found
• Hunter v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction due to inadequate allegations regarding the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy.
• Nix v. Jet Genius Fla. Holings, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-20
  The court held that a plaintiff's complaint must affirmatively allege their state of citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction, and a mere allegation of non-residency is insufficient.
• Yeomans v. Ferland
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-08
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day clock for removal did not begin until the defendant ascertained the plaintiff's citizenship, which was provided in a response to a request for admission.
• Hancock v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  The Court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a United States citizen domiciled abroad, cannot establish diversity jurisdiction with a citizen of a state.
• Kohrig v. Pavilion at Healthpark LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
• Stanziale v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-02
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in its jurisdictional allegations and constituted a shotgun pleading, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
• Malhotra v. Kumar
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and venue because the complaint did not properly allege the defendants' citizenship and failed to satisfy venue requirements.
• Mortg. Lenders Inv. Trading Corp. v. Vereen
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-25
  The court held that removal was improper because the defendant failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and therefore the motion to remand must be granted.
• Ligeri v. Independent
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-20
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because he did not properly establish his own citizenship or the citizenship of the defendant LLC.
• Jackson v. RKW Residential
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-19
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
• Coley v. Bank of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to establish subject matter jurisdiction, violating pleading standards, and failing to state a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and recommended dismissal with leave to amend.