Zurich American Insurance Company v. Jerry Walker
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Jerry Walker
Opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-12085 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 10/10/2024 Page: 1 of 3
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-12085
____________________
ROBERT BLANCHARD,
Plaintiff,
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Intervenor-Appellant,
versus
JERRY DONALD WALKER,
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
USCA11 Case: 24-12085 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 10/10/2024 Page: 2 of 3
2 Order of the Court 24-12085
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00696-RAH-CWB
____________________
Before BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
We issued jurisdictional questions about whether this appeal
is taken from a final and appealable order and about the district
court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As to
the district court’s jurisdiction, we asked whether Zurich American
Insurance Company’s (“Zurich”) intervenor complaint sufficiently
alleged the parties’ citizenship.
We are obligated to inquire into the district court’s subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Univ.
of S. Ala. V. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). For
subject matter jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1),
there must be complete diversity of citizenship between all plain-
tiffs and defendants. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89
(2005). To sufficiently allege the citizenship of a corporation, a
party must provide the corporation’s state, or foreign country, of
incorporation and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend,559 U.S. 77, 88
(2010). Zurich did
not provide its principal place of business in its intervenor
USCA11 Case: 24-12085 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 10/10/2024 Page: 3 of 3
24-12085 Order of the Court 3
complaint and has not moved to amend or otherwise correct the
deficiency despite our jurisdictional question. See id.
When, as here, we cannot determine whether there was, in
fact, complete diversity of citizenship, we remand for proceedings
on that issue. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings
L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (11th Cir. 2004); Purchasing Power,
LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1228 (11th Cir. 2017) (“In
the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on
the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the un-
fortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”).
Accordingly, we REMAND this appeal to the district court
for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties
and whether diversity jurisdiction existed. See Rolling Greens MHP,
L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022-23; Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp. Ins. Co.,
600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979). If the district court determines that
the parties are completely diverse in citizenship, then it should en-
ter an order to that effect and return the record, as supplemented,
to this Court for further proceedings. If the district court deter-
mines that complete diversity did not exist, then it should vacate
its rulings and dismiss the action. See Am. Motorists, 600 F.2d at 16.
We will address the finality issues presented in this appeal if it re-
turns to us after limited remand.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished