Filed: May 05, 2014
Latest Update: May 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the Complaint ( Doc. #1 ) filed on May 5, 2014. Plaintiff brings this case against the defendants based on diversity jurisdiction. Claims properly brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction contain matters where the parties are completely diverse with regard to citizenship and where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the Complaint ( Doc. #1 ) filed on May 5, 2014. Plaintiff brings this case against the defendants based on diversity jurisdiction. Claims properly brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction contain matters where the parties are completely diverse with regard to citizenship and where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on review of the Complaint (Doc. #1) filed on May 5, 2014. Plaintiff brings this case against the defendants based on diversity jurisdiction. Claims properly brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction contain matters where the parties are completely diverse with regard to citizenship and where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). In an action filed directly in federal court, plaintiff bears the burden of adequately pleading, and ultimately proving, jurisdiction. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, Plaintiff fails to properly indicate the individual defendant's citizenship. Instead, Plaintiff relies on the individuals' residences alone rather than their domiciles to indicate citizenship. (Doc. #1, at ¶¶ 3-5). An individual is a citizen for diversity purposes where he is domiciled and not necessarily where he is a resident. Domicile is the place of an individual's true, fixed, and permanent home and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom. See e.g., Arrol v. Heron, No. 2:10-cv-655-FtM-29DNF, 2011 WL 672417, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011). Also, the Court is not convinced that the proper amount in controversy is present in this matter. The Complaint simply states that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 but does not request a specific amount of damages nor explain the basis for this jurisdiction allegation. (Doc. #1, at ¶ 5). See generally Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (11th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than May 19, 2014 that properly alleges this Court's jurisdiction, otherwise, this matter will be closed without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED.
