“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person”
How later courts described this case
- “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MICHAEL W. NIX,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-524-SPC-NPM
JET GENIUS FLORIDA
HOLDINGS, INC. and JORDAN
BROWN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Nix’s Complaint (Doc. 1). As
outlined below, the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff and defendants are
citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish his citizenship,
Plaintiff alleges that he is “a non-resident of the State of Florida.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1).
But residency is not the same as citizenship. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d
1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that
must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person”).
Rather, 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). What’s more,
negative allegations of citizenship are insufficient; Plaintiff must affirmatively
allege his state of citizenship. See Kalergis v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 6:24-
CV-743-JA-DCI, 2024 WL 1765586, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024) (“[N]egative
pleading of citizenship is inadequate to establish this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)); Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC v.
Cart, No. 3:15-CV-311-J-39JBT, 2015 WL 13653043, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27,
2015) (“Plaintiff cannot plead its citizenship in the negative.”).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have “an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y.H.
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). “In a diversity action, the Court must ensure that the
plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the
citizenship of the parties is completely diverse.” Kunce v. SPM of Alabama,
LLC, No. 6:25-CV-533-PGB-RMN, 2025 WL 974674, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1,
2025). Because Plaintiff fails to affirmatively allege his state of citizenship, he
fails to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Michael Nix’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June 27, 2025.
Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without
further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 20, 2025.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record