# Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Mammoth Constructors, LLC

> District Court, M.D. Florida · February 8, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112055

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** February 8, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112055

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

AMERISURE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM

MAMMOTH CONSTUCTORS,
LLC and BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY,

Defendants.
/
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company’s
Amended Complaint for a declaratory judgment stemming from an insurance
dispute. (Doc. 8). The Court dismissed the original complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6). For the initial pleading, Plaintiff did not
show complete diversity because it did not identify the members of Defendant
Mammoth Constructors, LLC’s citizenships or domiciles. (Doc. 6). In
dismissing, the Court explained how Plaintiff could fix the jurisdictional
defects.

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not
responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
Plaintiff has tried again. But the Amended Complaint still fails to show
complete diversity. The Amended Complaint alleges Mammoth has two

members, “Harold James Ordway” and “Kevin Gerard Rodrique (sic),” and lists
their personal addresses. (Doc. 8 at ¶ 2). But the addresses only establish the
members’ residencies—not their citizenships nor domiciles. See Molinos Valle
Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2011)

(“Domicile is not synonymous with residence; one may temporarily reside in
one location, yet retain domicile in a previous residence.”). And residency is
not enough for diversity jurisdiction. Instead, a 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); see also Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast
SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Because the

Complaint still fails to plead complete diversity of the parties’ citizenship, the
Court must dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

1. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot,
terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 7, 20238.

,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112055. Public record. Not legal advice.