Davis v. Terrell

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 6:24-cv-00546
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION BRIAN DAVIS, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 6:24-cv-546-JA-RMN ROBERT TERRELL, J. RICHARD ESPINOSA, ADM CAPITAL, WILLIAM FERGUSON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLC, MIKE GERSTENBERGER, JAMES H. HAIG, HELEN L. HAIG, E&L TEXAS INVESTMENTS, ERIC SCHNEIDER, QUEST TRUST COMPANY, and PRO SERV INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendants.

ORDER This case is before the Court on review of the record following its transfe here from the Western District of Kentucky. Plaintiff, Brian Davis, filed this case in the United States District Cour for the Western District of Kentucky on January 22, 2024. (Compl., Doc. 1) Defendants then moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction anc improper venue, alternatively moving to transfer venue. (Mot., Doc. 9). Th parties then agreed to the transfer of the case to this Court, (see Docs. 13 & 14)

and the case was accordingly transferred, (see Doc. 16). But it is not clear tha this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[B]ecause a federal cour is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, □ court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itsel raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the □□□□□□□□□□ where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). In the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff bases federal jurisdiction on □□□□□□□□□ of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but Plaintiff does not sufficiently alleg diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff identifies the states of residence of Plaintif and the individual Defendants, but “[r]esidence alone is not enough” to □□□□□□□□□ citizenship. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002). “A person’: domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principa establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he i absent therefrom....” Jd. at 1257-58 (alteration in original) (Gnterna quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir 1974)). That a party may be a resident of a certain state does not establish tha state as his or her domicile.

Nor has Plaintiff adequately alleged the citizenships of the business entity Defendants. For example, the citizenship of a limited liability compan: is determined by the citizenships of each of its members, not by where ths company is organized. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., v. Comcast SCH Holding. L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, the Court cannot ascertain whether the parties are of divers citizenship. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 2. No later than April 12, 2024, Plaintiff shall file an amendec complaint that establishes the citizenship—not merely the residence—of eacl party. ZA DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Flori on April 62024

OHNA II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties