CORDOVA

v.

LANDSTAR INWAY, INC.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On August², 2021, Plaintiff initiated the instant action, by filing Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 1, Complaint) against Defendants. The Complaint asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “[t]here is complete diversity of citizenship of the parties in this matter and . . . Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in an amount exceeding $75,000.00.” Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he “is a citizen of Texas,” Defendant Billy R. Beech “is a citizen of the state of Tennessee,” and Defendants Landstar Inway, Inc. and Landstar System, Inc. are corporations each of which has its “principal place of business located in Florida.” Id. at 1.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F. 3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F. 3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity or that “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412; see also Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (“When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal”). For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a corporation “‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)) (emphasis omitted). Thus, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party must identify the states of incorporation and principal place of business. See Rolling Greens, 374 F. 3d at 1021-22; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added).

Upon review of the Complaint, it appears Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient information to determine the citizenship of Defendants Landstar Inway, Inc. and Landstar System, Inc. While Plaintiff alleges each corporate Defendants’ principal place of business, Plaintiff does not identify the state of incorporation for either. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.¹ In light of the foregoing, the Court

will afford Plaintiff? an opportunity to provide the Court with sufficient information to establish the citizenship of Defendants Landstar Inway, Inc. and Landstar System, Inc., and thereby the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over the instant action.

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until August 20, 2021, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 4, 2021.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

1¢e28 Copies to: Counsel of Record