CAPPALLI
v.
DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction because she did not establish her own domicile or that of any other class member.
Plaintiff sued Defendant Danone North America for allegedly deceptive labeling of almond milk, citing diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff pleaded reside…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Irene Cappalli’s Complaint (Doc. 1). Cappalli sues Defendant Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals for allegedly deceptive labeling, marketing, and selling of almond milk. The Complaint cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 15-17). “[A] federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking” and should do so “at the earliest
must prove that diversity jurisdiction exists. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F. 3d 1160, 1171 (11th Cir. 2007). For class actions, diversity jurisdiction requires any member of the class of plaintiffs to be a citizen of a state different from any defendant2 and an amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Diversity is uncertain here because Cappalli has not sufficiently pled her own citizenship or that of any other class member. Cappalli pleads that she is a resident of Florida and resides in Rotonda
West, Florida. (Doc. 1 at 15, 18). Residency is not enough. A person’s citizenship is determined by her “domicile,” or “the place of [her] true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment . . . to which [she] has the intention of returning whenever [she] is absent therefrom.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002). Here, Cappalli’s domicile is not identified. Nor does Cappalli identify the domicile of any other class member. So, Cappalli has not met her burden of showing diversity jurisdiction exists.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record