IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRESCA GREEN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-10 (MTT) ) ARTHUR MANN, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Defendants Arthur Mann, Samuel Coraluzzo Co., Inc., and Penco Leasing, LLC, move to dismiss Plaintiff Tresca Green’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 8. Specifically, Defendants contend Green alleges no federal question and fails to show complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants. Doc. 8-1 at 1. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the lawsuit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

(a)(1). To satisfy diversity jurisdiction, each defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,

(11th Cir. 1999). In other words, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Green’s complaint asserts negligence claims stemming from a motor vehicle accident in Macon, Georgia. Doc. 3. As such, Green only asserts jurisdiction is proper because “[t]here is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff and all Defendants, and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00.” Id. ¶ 7. But the plain language of Green’s complaint shows this is simply not the case. Green’s complaint alleges “Plaintiff Tresca Green resides at 1868 Sussex Drive, Macon, Bibb County, Georgia 31206.” Id. ¶ 1. Then, in the very next paragraph, the complaint alleges “Defendant Arthur Mann resides at 705 American Boulevard, Warner Robbins, Houston County, Georgia 31093.” Id. ¶ 2. Because both Green and Mann are

residents of Georgia, complete diversity does not exist. Univ. of S. Ala.,

. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. Green’s complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice.1 SO ORDERED, this 21st day of March, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 The parties jointly moved for an extension of time for Green to respond to this motion. Doc. 12. For reasons unbeknownst to the Court, the parties requested up to ninety days for Green to file her response. Id. ¶ 3 (“The extended deadline requested for Plaintiff to file her opposition and/or response to Defendants’ Motion is Tuesday, May 10, 2022.”). The Court granted that motion in part, and allowed Green until March 8, 2022, to file a response. Doc. 13. As Green has not done so, the Court considers this motion unopposed. Kirkland v. Cnty. Comm’n of Elmore Cnty.,

, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 6, 2009) (collecting cases).