Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:00-1080-RV-M
January 5, 2001
ORDER
This case was recently assigned to the undersigned's docket. After review of the complaint, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action for the following four reasons, each one of which is fatal.
As instructed by the United States Supreme Court, "The federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction." United States v. Hays, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 2435, 132 L.Ed.2d 635, 742 (1995). Accord, Wilson v. Minor, 220 F.3d 1297, 1303 n. 11 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Of course, a federal court has an independent obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction over any claim brought before it even if jurisdictional questions are not raised by either party.") (citing Hays); University of So. Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[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.") (citations omitted); Fitzgerald v. Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.").
1. Plaintiffs fail to identify the source of the court's jurisdiction.
2. Assuming that plaintiffs intended to invoke the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship), the allegations are insufficient to establish that the parties are diverse.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 grants federal subject matter jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
a. Although plaintiffs allege the states of their residency, they fail to allege the states of their citizenship. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that they "reside in Mobile County, Alabama." Whatever plaintiffs' intentions may have been, it is clear that this statement does not demonstrate their citizenship. See Kerney v. Fort Griffin Fandangle Ass'n, Inc., 624 F.2d 717, 719 (5th Cir. 1980) ("An allegation of residence is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff must allege citizenship.").
b. Congress has determined that, for diversity of citizenship purposes, a corporation "is deemed to be a citizenship of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c). Although plaintiffs allege that the defendant is "an Arkansas corporation," plaintiffs fail to identify the principal place of business of the corporate defendant.
3. Most importantly, plaintiffs wholly fail to allege the amount in controversy, stating simply that they are entitled to a "judgment against the Defendant in a sum to be determined by a jury." As the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction lies on the party seeking to invoke it, the court declines to speculate as to the value of this personal injury action. Additionally, the mere fact that plaintiffs seek punitive damages does not automatically raise the amount in controversy above the minimum jurisdictional amount.
See, e.g., Gaitor v. Peninsular Occidental Steamship Co., 287 F.2d 252, 254 (5th Cir. 1961) ("[T]he burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to invoke it and cannot be placed upon the adversary who challenges it."). See also, Village Fair Shopping Center Co. v. Sam Broadhead Trust, 588 F.2d 431, 432 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof if diversity is challenged.").
Thus, plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient factual allegations which establish that diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on defendant and to file proof of such service within ten days of service.