Opinion
2:22-cv-546-JLB-KCD
09-06-2022
THE CLOISTERS OF NAPLES, INC., Plaintiff, v. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink's availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
This is a Hurricane Irma insurance case based on diversity jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction to apply, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting “complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013). If there is any deficiency in subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is constitutionally obligated to dismiss the action. Id. at 1269. The party seeking federal jurisdiction must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002).
Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.
Cloisters does not adequately plead diversity as to Landmark American Insurance Company, alleging “upon information and belief” that Landmark is a citizen of Oklahoma and Georgia. (Doc. 1 at 2.) But citizenship cannot be supposed, “nor supplanted by considerations of convenience and efficiency.” SeeMorrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Jurisdiction cannot be established by a hypothetical.”). To remedy this deficiency, Cloisters may file an amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
The Cloisters of Naples, Inc., may file an amended complaint by September 13, 2022. Failing to do so will result in a recommendation that the complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.