UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-530-J-34PDB v.

DAYBREAK, INC. d/b/a HUBER & ASSOCIATES, THOMAS FRIEDBERG, and SARAH BUNGE,

Defendants. /

O R D E R

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 Mortg. Co.,

, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2001). 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.,

(11th Cir. 1999) (“It 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

; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1997). On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff Southern-Owners Insurance Company initiated this action by filing a complaint and purporting to set forth the facts establishing that the Court

has jurisdiction over this action. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 2-5, 13. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, in accordance with

.

. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff declares that “upon information and belief,” Defendants Thomas Friedberg and Sarah Bunge are “residents” of California.

. However, these allegations do not adequately identify the citizenship of those individual parties, and thus, the Court is without sufficient information to satisfy its jurisdictional inquiry.1 For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala.,

. To establish diversity over a natural person, a complaint must include allegations of the person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. See Taylor v. Appleton,

(11th Cir. 1994). A natural 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,

, 1257–58 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). Because the

1 The failure to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction in this case is certainly not unique. See Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading challenge for the Bar.”). But, as aptly stated in Wilkins, the all-to-common “failure to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the jurisdictional requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of judicial resources that cannot continue.”

Indeed,

[t]he U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent screening cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of deficiencies, then rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause orders is time that could and should be devoted to the substantive work of the Court.

at *1 n.4. As such, before filing any future pleadings in federal court, counsel is strongly encouraged to review the applicable authority on federal subject matter jurisdiction. See

(bulleting several “hints” on how to allege federal diversity jurisdiction properly).

Complaint merely discloses where Defendants Friedberg and Bunge reside, as opposed to their domicile or citizenship, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor,

; see also Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,

,

,

(1989) (“‘Domicile is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence[.]’”) (citation omitted).2 In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to establish diversity of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over the action.3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

2 The Court also notes that allegations, premised only on “information and belief,” are insufficient to establish the citizenship of a party as necessary to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Payne v. Ivy, No. 6:18-cv-3-Orl-18KRS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018) (“Allegations made ‘upon information and belief’ are not sufficient to support jurisdictional allegations, however.”); Matos-Cruz v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 6:17-cv-380-Orl-37TBS,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Courts have held that allegations concerning a party’s citizenship based only ‘on information and belief’ are insufficient.”); Principle Solutions LLC v. Feed.ing BV, No. 13-C-223,

, at *2 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2013). 3 Carefully ascertaining the citizenship of the parties and whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction is more than just an academic exercise, as is evident from two Eleventh Circuit decisions from 2017. See Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp of Am.,

(11th Cir. 2017) (vacating summary judgment order after three years of litigation where court determined on appeal that the pleadings below had not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of a defendant limited liability company, and upon further inquiry, found that the defendant limited liability company had a non-diverse member); see also Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2017) (discussing whether sanctions were warranted in a case where summary judgment was reversed on appeal after the appellate court discovered that the pleadings did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, leading to the realization that there was no diversity jurisdiction) (“While the requirements of diversity jurisdiction in this scenario are complicated, they are the law. No party in this case acted with bad intentions, but the result was a colossal waste of time and effort. We trust that the damage done to the parties' credibility, finances, and time is enough of a sanction to curb their conduct and to serve as a warning to future diversity jurisdiction litigants. In the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”). Plaintiff Southern-Owners Insurance Company shall have up to and including June 15, 2020, to provide the Court with additional information demonstrating that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 1st day of June, 2020.

IA Maal Ha United States District Judge

Ic11 Copies to: Counsel of Record