IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

ELVERAGE ALLEN and SHELIA § PLAINTIFFS ALLEN § § v. § Civil No. 2:22-cv-55-HSO-RHWR § § BEST WESTERN COLLINS, INC. § and JOHN DOE INN § DEFENDANTS

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO BRIEF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OR FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT ADDRESSES SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION This matter is before the Court sua sponte to consider its subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiffs Elverage Allen and Shelia Allen (“Plaintiffs”) have not sufficiently addressed subject-matter jurisdiction in their Complaint [1] and it is not facially apparent from the Complaint [1] that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs are required to brief this issue or file an amended complaint on or before May 17, 2022. “Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and must presume a civil action lies outside that limited jurisdiction until the party seeking the federal forum meets its burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

(5th Cir. 2001). The Court has “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.,

(2006). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois,

(5th Cir. 2008). There are two primary bases for federal jurisdiction: the existence of a federal

question, see

, and complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, see

. Under

, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. Under

, “[t]he district courts . . . have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and

is between . . . citizens of different States.”

(a)(1). Where jurisdiction is based on an allegation of diversity of citizenship, the citizenship of the parties must be “distinctly and affirmatively alleged.” Howery,

(quoting Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp.,

(5th Cir. 1991)). “[A]llegations regarding the citizenship of a corporation must set out the principal place of business of the corporation as well as the state of its incorporation.” MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2019)

(quotation omitted). No federal question is apparent on the face of the Complaint [1], and the Complaint [1] lacks the information required to determine if diversity jurisdiction is present. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to allege Defendant Best Western Collins, Inc.’s principal place of business. See Compl. [1] at 2. The Complaint [1] merely alleges that Defendant Best Western Collins, Inc. “is a Mississippi corporation doing business in the State of Mississippi within the territorial limits of Mississippi.”

This allegation is insufficient to plead a corporation’s citizenship. See MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C.,

. Plaintiffs claim to be proceeding

under diversity jurisdiction, but in order to do so they must provide the parties’ citizenship. See Compl. [1] at 2. IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Plaintiffs must on or before May 17, 2022, file a brief or amended complaint that distinctly and affirmatively alleges the parties’ citizenship. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 3rd day of May, 2022.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE