From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mammoth Constructors, LLC

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Feb 7, 2023
2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM

02-07-2023

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH CONSTUCTORS, LLC and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, Defendants.


ORDER

Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink's functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company's Amended Complaint for a declaratory judgment stemming from an insurance dispute. (Doc. 8). The Court dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6). For the initial pleading, Plaintiff did not show complete diversity because it did not identify the members of Defendant Mammoth Constructors, LLC's citizenships or domiciles. (Doc. 6). In dismissing, the Court explained how Plaintiff could fix the jurisdictional defects.

Plaintiff has tried again. But the Amended Complaint still fails to show complete diversity. The Amended Complaint alleges Mammoth has two members, “Harold James Ordway” and “Kevin Gerard Rodrique (sic),” and lists their personal addresses. (Doc. 8 at ¶ 2). But the addresses only establish the members' residencies not their citizenships nor domiciles. See Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Domicile is not synonymous with residence; one may temporarily reside in one location, yet retain domicile in a previous residence.”). And residency is not enough for diversity jurisdiction. Instead, a person's citizenship is determined by his “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 v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Because the Complaint still fails to plead complete diversity of the parties' citizenship, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.

DONE and ORDERED

Copies: All Parties of Record


Summaries of

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mammoth Constructors, LLC

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Feb 7, 2023
2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023)
Case details for

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mammoth Constructors, LLC

Case Details

Full title:AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH CONSTUCTORS, LLC…

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Feb 7, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023)

Citing Cases

Norvilus-Foreste v. Walmart Stores E., LP

This Court's “long established rule” is quite the opposite. See Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mammoth …

LAMVEST888, LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.

And second, an address says nothing of citizenship. See Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mammoth…