USCA11 Case: 24-11138    Document: 21-2     Date Filed: 07/25/2024   Page: 1 of 4




                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-11138
                          ____________________

       MARTHA C. HARRIS,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
       STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
       CRAWFORD & COMPANY,


                                                  Defendants-Appellees.


                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00173-AMM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-11138      Document: 21-2       Date Filed: 07/25/2024     Page: 2 of 4




       2                        Order of the Court                   24-11138

       Before BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       BY THE COURT:
               In February 2023, Roderick Harris, proceeding pro se, filed a
       complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Standard Guaranty In-
       surance Company; and Crawford & Company, invoking the dis-
       trict court’s diversity jurisdiction. However, with the exception of
       the estate of Martha Harris, which was the primary plaintiff, the
       allegations in the complaint were insufficient to establish the par-
       ties’ citizenships. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 

 (11th Cir. 2013); Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v.
       Tuskegee Univ., 

 (11th Cir. 2011).
              On appeal, we issued a jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asking
       the parties to address the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
       Harris’s motion for leave to file his response to the JQ out of time
       is GRANTED.
              Although all parties argue that diversity of citizenship exists
       for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, Harris has not moved
       to amend his complaint, and the parties have not pointed to any
       record evidence demonstrating the citizenship of each unresolved
       party. See Travaglio, 

.
              First, because Harris’s pro se complaint alleged damages to
       him as an individual and to the estate of Martha Harris, the district
       court’s summary judgment order treated Harris and the estate as
       separate plaintiffs. See Carmichael v. United States, 

 (11th Cir. 2020); Lundgren v. McDaniel, 

 (11th
       Cir. 1987). Thus, record evidence must show the citizenship of
USCA11 Case: 24-11138       Document: 21-2       Date Filed: 07/25/2024      Page: 3 of 4




       24-11138                  Order of the Court                            3

       Roderick Harris as an individual, separate from the estate. See
       

(c)(2); King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 

 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that the legal representative of the
       estate of a decedent is deemed a citizen only of the same state as
       the decedent, who is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which
       she was domiciled at the time of her death); Travaglio, 

 (stating that a natural person’s citizenship is determined by
       their domicile, not simply their residence). Wells Fargo points to
       the mailing address that Roderick Harris provided in the complaint
       for both himself and the estate, but this address, which is only a
       post office box, does nothing to show where he is domiciled. See
       Travaglio, 

.
               Although the defendants point us to Wells Fargo’s and
       Crawford’s answers to the complaint, those filings did not suffi-
       ciently show their citizenships—Wells Fargo gave the location of
       its “principal office,” and Crawford did not give the location of its
       principal place of business. See 

; Wachovia Bank v.
       Schmidt, 

 (2006) (stating that a national banking
       association “is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set
       forth in its articles of association, is located”); 

(c)(1)
       (providing that a corporation is deemed a citizen of its state of in-
       corporation and the state where it has its principal place of busi-
       ness). Further, the parties’ unsworn statements in their JQ re-
       sponses are not evidence. Travaglio, 

. Standard
       Guaranty asks us to refer to the district court’s findings in a sub-
       stantively related but separate action, but those findings are not
       part of the record in this case and were made based on a March
USCA11 Case: 24-11138     Document: 21-2      Date Filed: 07/25/2024    Page: 4 of 4




       4                       Order of the Court                 24-11138

       2020 notice of removal, three years before the complaint was filed
       in this case.
               Accordingly, this appeal is REMANDED to the district court
       for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties
       and whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See Rolling Greens MHP,
       L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 

, 1022‑23 (11th
       Cir. 2004).
               If the district court determines that the parties are com-
       pletely diverse in citizenship, then it should enter an order to that
       effect and return the record, as supplemented, to this Court for fur-
       ther proceedings. If the district court determines that complete di-
       versity does not exist, then it should vacate its rulings and dismiss
       the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.