ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR., District Judge.
Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest initially sought to simultaneously remove two separate, albeit related, state-court cases filed against it by Plaintiff Beatrice Dockery. In doing so, Hartford, without providing any support, attempted to unilaterally consolidate Dockery's two cases into this one federal case. In noting the impropriety of Hartford's "consolidated removal," the Court remanded one of the cases because the allegations in Hartford's notice of removal definitively established that the amount in controversy in that case—$35,815.84—was well short of the jurisdictional amount (Def.'s Pet. for Removal ¶ 6, ECF No. 1, 2.)
At the same time, the Court advised Hartford of shortcomings with respect to its citizenship allegations as to the other case it had removed. In particular, the Court pointed out that alleging a party's residency, as opposed to her citizenship, is inadequate for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. (Order Severing, ECF No. 8, 2.) Furthermore, the Court instructed, citizenship allegations cannot be stated only "upon information and belief." (Id.)
Hartford's initial allegations of Dockery's citizenship read as follows: "Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was and is [a] Florida resident at all times material to the action." (Def.'s Pet. for Removal ¶ 11, ECF No. 1, 3.) Hartford's "amended" allegations regarding Dockery's citizenship are, perplexingly, exactly the same. Hartford has thus utterly failed to comply with the Court's order. The Court forewarned Hartford that if it failed "to provide the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction, the Court will remand this case." (Order at 2.) Inexplicably, it appears Hartford did not even attempt to supply the necessary facts.
The Court therefore
The Clerk is directed to