PRO MUSIC RIGHTS, INC
v.
GOLDMAN

M.D. Fla. | 2021-02-05
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

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.

Holding

The court held that the complaint failed to properly allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed a diversity action, but the complaint only alleged residence, not citizenship, for the parties. The court reviewed the file sua spont…

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.

Topics
Domicile Vs. Residence Residence Domicile Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domicile Vs. Residence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

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 Goldman. Since Plaintiffs are proceeding in federal court, they 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). And district courts are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with this Order on or before February 19, 2021. The failure to file a timely

amended complaint will result in the case being closed without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 5, 2021.

tite POLSTER otal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. The Complaint only alleges Goldman is “believed” a “resident” of Georgia and that Noch is a “resident” of Florida. (Doc. 1 at 4). “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A party’s residence in a state—without more—is not enough to show citizenship. E.g., Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F. 3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). Rather, “[c]itizenship is equivalent to domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Complaint, therefore, fails to correctly plead the citizenship of both Goldman and Noch. Because the Court cannot conclude it has jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that adequately pleads subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, it is now

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw