Turner v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company
Turner v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER TURNER and DEBRA TURNER,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-631-SPC-NPM
WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant. / ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Christopher and Debra Turner’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). This is a breach of contract action involving property damage that occurred because of Hurricane Ian. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y.H. Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514(2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,
526 U.S. 574, 583(1999)). Plaintiffs do not state the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. In fact, the Complaint reads as though Plaintiffs intended to file it in state court since the Complaint alleges “more than $50,000” in controversy and cites to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). If Plaintiffs intended to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under
42 U.S.C. § 4072, they have not properly done so because they have not pled the facts to support such jurisdiction.! The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Christopher and Debra Turner’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before September 1, 2023. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 18, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
! The Court presumes this was Plaintiffs’ intent due to the Complaint’s reference to “flood damage” and because Plaintiffs have not pled any of the conditions for diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Complaint states that the amount in controversy is “more than $50,000” and does not properly allege the citizenship of Plaintiffs nor Defendant. (Doc. 1).
Reference
- Status
- Unknown