Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-0218-RV-L
March 30, 2001
ORDER
This case was recently assigned to the undersigned's docket. After carefully reviewing the complaint, the court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed sua sponte sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As instructed by the United States Supreme Court, "The federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction." United States v. Hays. 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995). Accord Wilson v. Minor 220 F.3d 1297, 1303 n. 11 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Of course, a federal court has an independent obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction over any claim brought before it even if jurisdictional questions are not raised by either party.") (citing Hays); University of So. Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[A] court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.") (citations omitted); Fitzgerald v. Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.").
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 23, 2001. In it, the plaintiffs put forth several claims against Alabama Watersports, Inc. and Fun Marina, Inc., which arise from a personal watercraft ("jet ski") accident that occurred on August 12, 1999. This accident resulted in personal injury to Richard Daniel Leos and the death of Timothy Leos. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $75,000.II. DISCUSSION
The plaintiffs assert that the court has jurisdiction to hear this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 grants federal subject matter jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It is well-settled that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that these two jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.
Here, the plaintiffs merely alleged that they "currently reside in College Park, Georgia." It is clear that this statement of does not demonstrate the plaintiffs' citizenship. See Kerney v. Fort Griffin Fandangle Ass'n. Inc., 624 F.2d 717, 719 (5th Cir. 1980) ("An allegation of residence is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff must allege citizenship."). Furthermore, plaintiffs simply assert that Alabama Watersports, Inc. and Fun Marina, Inc. are both "Alabama Corporation[s]," and provide the names of their owners and the addresses where these companies are located, but fail to provide the principal place of business as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, plaintiffs have not demonstrated complete diversity of citizenship between themselves and the defendants.
In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions handed down by the Former Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981.
Accordingly, because the plaintiffs have not set forth the necessary factual basis for their assertion that "[t]his Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332," this case is due to be dismissed. See Xaros v. U.S. Fidelity Gaur. Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court's dismissal where plaintiff merely invoked diversity jurisdiction without setting forth factual allegations supporting jurisdiction).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the adverse parties. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.