PRO MUSIC RIGHTS, INC
v.
GOLDMAN
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 amended complaint failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because it only alleged residency, not citizenship, of the defendant.
Plaintiffs filed a diversity action, but the court previously dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The amended complaint again failed to properly al…
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 Citizenship For Diversity Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is a sua sponte review of the file. Plaintiffs Pro Music Rights, Inc. and Jake P. Noch bring this diversity action against Miles A. Goldman. For this Court to have jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must show the parties are completely diverse with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The Court previously dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 4). In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege “Defendant Miles Austin Goldman is an individual, who is a resident of the State of Georgia, and is
Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). Plaintiffs must allege diversity of citizenship, not just residency. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d. 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”). By only alleging Goldman resides in Georgia and failing to allege what state Goldman is a citizen of, Plaintiffs do not establish jurisdiction. The Court allowed Plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint. (Doc. 4). The Eleventh Circuit has stated litigants must be afforded one chance to amend their complaint before the Court dismisses the action. See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F. 3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). The Court need not provide Plaintiffs another chance to amend their complaint and will dismiss the case. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all remaining deadlines and motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 17, 2021.
, Lh platrathe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005)
- Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202 (M.D. Fla. 1991)