UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

WINTRUST SPECIALTY FINANCE, A DIVISION OF BEVERLY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-cv-1037-MMH-JBT vs.

BARRS TRANSPORTATION INC., JILL BARR, and GLENN BARR,

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.,

(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) (“[I]t 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 October 14, 2021, Plaintiff Wintrust Specialty Finance, a Division of Beverly Bank & Trust Company, N.A. initiated this action by filing a three- count Complaint (Doc. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has

diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

because “Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars.” See Complaint ¶ 5. Although Plaintiff properly alleges its own citizenship and that of Defendant

Barrs Transportation Inc., as to the individual Defendants, Plaintiff alleges only that Jill Barr and Glenn Barr are each “an individual resident of St. Johns County, Florida.” See

. This information is insufficient to demonstrate the citizenship of these individuals. As such, the Court is unable to determine

whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. 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 or her “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,

(11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). Here, the Complaint discloses where Jill Barr and Glenn Barr reside, but does not identify their domicile or state of citizenship. “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural

person.” Taylor,

(emphasis supplied); see also Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,

(1989) (“‘Domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence’”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the facts necessary to establish the Court’s diversity

jurisdiction over this case. In addition, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun complaint contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing

each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office,

, 1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). As a result, “most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal

conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. See

Here, Counts II and III of the Complaint incorporate by

reference all allegations of the preceding counts. See Complaint ¶¶ 20, 24. In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are “altogether unacceptable.” Cramer v. State of Fla.,

(11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v. Randolph County,

(11th Cir. 2009) (“We

have had much to say about shotgun pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight.” See Weiland,

& n.9 (collecting cases). As the Court in Cramer

recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and resources.” Cramer,

. When faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative, and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

(admonishing district court for not striking shotgun

complaint on its own initiative); see also Weiland,

n.10 (“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite statement], the district court ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun pleading and give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”). In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file

a corrected complaint which properly establishes diversity of citizenship between the parties such that this Court has jurisdiction over this action and corrects the shotgun nature of the Complaint. ORDERED: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff shall file a corrected complaint! which complies with this Order on or before October 29, 2021. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. 3. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on October 15, 2021.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

1 The filing of the corrected complaint does not affect any right Plaintiff may have to amend as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).

lc11 Copies to:

Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties