Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a three-count Complaint against Defendant in state court asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, and contractual indemnity. (Doc. 2.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 6, 2016, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Upon review, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal (" Notice ") contains insufficient allegations of subj
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a three-count Complaint against Defendant in state court asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, and contractual indemnity. (Doc. 2.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 6, 2016, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Upon review, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal (" Notice ") contains insufficient allegations of subje..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a three-count Complaint against Defendant in state court asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, and contractual indemnity. (Doc. 2.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 6, 2016, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Upon review, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal ("Notice") contains insufficient allegations of subject matter jurisdiction.
Removal jurisdiction exists where the district court of the United States would have had original jurisdiction over an action filed in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In diversity cases, district courts have original jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "To meet the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332(a), the citizenship of each plaintiff must be different from that of each defendant." Holston Invs., Inc. B.V.I. v. LanLogistics Corp., 677 F.3d 1068, 1070 (11th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists, Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001), and "all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999).
In the Notice, Defendant only alleges the citizenship of itself and one Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance ("Liberty Mutual"). (See Doc. 1, ¶ 8.) Consistent with the requirement that the citizenship of each plaintiff must be different from that each defendant, Holston Invs., 677 F.3d at 1070, Defendant must plead the citizenship of each plaintiff to adequately demonstrate complete diversity.1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before Monday, May 16, 2016, Defendant shall amend its Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) to cure the deficiencies outlined in this Order. Failure to timely file may result in remand without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED.
