ORDER

JOHN ANTOON, II, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on sua sponte review.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises." Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

Here, Plaintiff invokes this court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332(a)(1) grants federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions between "citizens of different States" where the amount in controversy "exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." The burden to establish the parties' diverse citizenship is on the plaintiff. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not adequately alleged its own citizenship.1

In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it "is an insurance company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania." (Doc. 1 at 2). But Plaintiff does not state whether it is an incorporated or unincorporated entity, and its Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Doc. 8) sheds no light on this either. Thus, the record does not contain sufficient information for the Court to ascertain Plaintiff's citizenship. See generally Soc'y Ins. v. Bessemer Plywood Co., No. 17-cv-95-bbc, 2017 WL 1040518 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 17, 2017).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, June 26, 2018, Plaintiff shall submit evidence establishing Plaintiff's citizenship. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.