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

> District Court, M.D. Florida · December 16, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761307

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** December 16, 2024
- **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/10761307

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761307. Public record. Not legal advice.