HEATH

v.

ETHICON, INC.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and therefore, have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. 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) (“It 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).

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Helen Heath and John Heath initiated this action by filing a complaint and purporting to set forth the facts establishing that the Court has   jurisdiction over this action. See Civil Action Complaint (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 1-4, 7-8. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the Court has jurisdiction because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. ¶ 8. In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs allege that Helen Heath is “a citizen and resident” of Florida, but as to John Heath, state only that he is a “resident” of the state of Florida. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Because this allegation does not adequately identify the citizenship of John Heath, the Court is without sufficient information to satisfy its jurisdictional inquiry. For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412. To establish diversity over a natural person, a complaint must include allegations of the person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).

A natural person’s citizenship is determined by his “domicile,” or

“the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment . . . to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257–58 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted).

Because the Complaint merely discloses where John Heath resides, as opposed to his domicile or citizenship, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor, 30 F. 3d at 1367; see also Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 1608, 104 L. Ed.2d 29 (1989) (“‘Domicile is not necessarily synonymous with

‘residence[.]’”) (citation omitted). In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiffs an opportunity to establish diversity of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over the action.' Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Plaintiffs Helen and John Heath shall have up to and including November 13, 2020, to provide the Court with additional information demonstrating that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 30th day of October, 2020.

ie Meal be United States District Judge

Ic11 Copies to: Counsel of Record