Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. Performance Custom Carts & Tires LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

MESA UNDERWRITERS

SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-1121-SPC-KCD

PERFORMANCE CUSTOM

CARTS & TIRES LLC, DEBORAH

BROWN, JUSTIN BROWN, and

NORA CHATHA,

Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court after review of the docket. Because

Plaintiff Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company insufficiently

alleges jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the Complaint (Doc. 1) without

prejudice and with leave to amend.

This is an insurance action. Plaintiff issued Defendant Performance

Custom Carts & Tires LLC (“PCC”) a liability insurance policy. Defendant

PCC then modified and sold a golf cart that was involved in an accident. J.B.,

a minor, was injured in the accident, and the parents have since sued

Defendant PCC, among other parties involved. Plaintiff now asks this Court

to declare that its liability policy does not cover any damages or trigger a duty

to defend with respect to the underlying lawsuit.

The Court is “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). The basis for jurisdiction here is unclear.

Plaintiff cites the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201. But that

statute “does not itself confer jurisdiction upon federal courts.” United States

v. Knowles, 683 F. App’x 736, 737 (11th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff also mentions that

the “amount in controversy is in excess of the Court’s minimum jurisdictional

amount of $75,000,” perhaps a reference to diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 8).

If Plaintiff would like to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, it must make

this clear.

Even assuming Plaintiff wishes to invoke the Court’s diversity

jurisdiction, its allegations are insufficient. The Court has diversity

jurisdiction over a civil action where there is complete diversity of citizenship

between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive

of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff has not adequately

alleged citizenship for two reasons.

First, a person is a citizen where she is domiciled, not necessarily where

she resides. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir.

2002) (defining citizenship as a person’s “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[.]”). But with

respect to Defendants Deborah Brown, Justin Brown, and Nora Chatha, as

Guardian Ad Litem to J.B., the complaint alleges only that they reside in

Pennsylvania and Ohio. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 13-15). This is insufficient. Residence—

without more—does not establish domicile (and in turn, citizenship). See, e.g.,

Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff

must amend on this point.

Second, with respect to Defendant Chatha and J.B., “the citizenship of

the minor and not of the next friend determines whether diversity jurisdiction

exists.” H.F. by & through Whitlock v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y,

No. 4:18CV344-WS/CAS, 2018 WL 7297854, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2018).

Plaintiff must provide J.B.’s citizenship in the amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. On or before December 23, 2024, Plaintiff must file an amended

complaint consistent with this Order. Failure to comply may

result in further dismissal and closure without further notice.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 16, 2024.

tite POLSTER otal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record