Carey Fortson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit against his former employer and several individuals for fraudulent misrepresentation allegedly committed in separate litigation concerning his termination. Fortson argues that diversity jurisdiction existed over his claim against the individual defendants because one of the named defendants was a citizen of North Carolina, while Fortson was a resident of Georgia. 1

We review a district court’s' determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 408 (11th Cir. 1999). Federal courts are vested with original jurisdiction over claims between citizens of different states where the amount in question exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For federal diversity *415 jurisdiction to attach, all parties must be completely diverse, requiring all plaintiffs to be diverse from all defendants. Univ. ofS. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412.

Here, the district court did not err by dismissing Fortson’s state law claim against the individual defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of all the parties. See id. Although one defendant may have been a citizen of North Carolina, this does not create diversity jurisdiction because Fort-son noted that the other named defendants were all, like himself, residents of Georgia. In any event, Fortson had to allege diversity of citizenship, not just residency. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”).

Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Fortson’s suit for lack of complete diversity, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.