Pro Music Rights, Inc et al v. Goldman, No. 2:2021cv00092 - Document 4 (M.D. Fla. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with this Order on or before February 19, 2021. The failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in the case being closed without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/5/2021. (AEH)
Download PDF
Pro Music Rights, Inc et al v. Goldman Doc. 4 Case 2:21-cv-00092-SPC-MRM Document 4 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION PRO MUSIC RIGHTS, INC and JAKE P NOCH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:21-cv-92-SPC-MRM MILES A GOLDMAN, Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Before the Court is a sua sponte review of the file. Plaintiffs Pro Music Rights, Inc. and Jake P. Noch bring this diversity action against Goldman. Since Plaintiffs are proceeding in federal court, they must show the parties are completely diverse with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). And district courts are “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). Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00092-SPC-MRM Document 4 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 24 The Complaint only alleges Goldman is “believed” a “resident” of Georgia and that Noch is a “resident” of Florida. (Doc. 1 at 4). “Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.” Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A party’s residence in a state—without more—is not enough to show citizenship. E.g., Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). Rather, “[c]itizenship is equivalent to domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Complaint, therefore, fails to correctly plead the citizenship of both Goldman and Noch. Because the Court cannot conclude it has jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that adequately pleads subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with this Order on or before February 19, 2021. The failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in the case being closed without further notice. 2 Case 2:21-cv-00092-SPC-MRM Document 4 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 25 DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 5, 2021. Copies: All Parties of Record 3