Americano Beach Lodge Resort Condominium Association, Inc. v. Ariel Specialty Insurance Managers on Behalf of Ariel Syndicate 1910
6:18-cv-00563
M.D. Fla.Jun 6, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Americano Beach Lodge Resort Condominium Assoc., Inc. filed suit alleging federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 against "Ariel Specialty Insurance Managers on behalf of Ariel Syndicate 1910."
- Complaint alleged Americano was a Florida non-profit licensed and doing business in Volusia County; alleged Ariel Specialty was "a Delaware registered company" doing business in Florida.
- The magistrate judge found the citizenship allegations deficient: Americano did not allege its incorporation or principal place of business, and did not properly identify Ariel Specialty’s organizational form or the citizenship of the real party in interest.
- Americano responded, submitting a declaration stating Ariel Syndicate 1910 issued the policy and that the syndicate’s sole underwriting member is an English private company with headquarters in London; Americano nonetheless lacked proof of Ariel Specialty’s citizenship.
- The court concluded Americano failed to plead or prove complete diversity and could not cure the defect with the evidence provided.
- Recommendation: dismiss the complaint without prejudice and grant leave to amend to properly plead jurisdictional facts; if Americano cannot comply with Rule 11, it should refile in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity | Americano alleged diversity, asserting it is a Florida citizen and that Ariel (via counsel representations) was diverse; suggested real party in interest is Ariel Syndicate 1910 | Ariel (through earlier representations and the record) was described as a Delaware-registered entity doing business in Florida; the record did not establish Ariel Specialty’s citizenship | Court found jurisdiction not established because citizenship allegations were legally insufficient and evidence did not cure the defect; recommended dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend |
| Whether plaintiff’s pleading of party citizenship was legally sufficient | Plaintiff asserted its status as a Florida non-profit licensed and doing business in Volusia County was adequate | Defendant pointed (implicitly via record) to uncertainty about the defendant’s organizational form and foreign connections (London underwriting member) | Court held plaintiff failed to allege required facts (place of incorporation or principal place of business for corporations; organizational form and members for other entities) and thus failed to plead diversity |
| Whether record evidence cured defective jurisdictional allegations | Plaintiff submitted a declaration identifying Ariel Syndicate 1910 and its London-based underwriting member, arguing this clarified the proper defendant and diversity | Defendant did not produce contrary evidence; but the submitted declaration did not specify citizenship of the syndicate as a U.S. citizen or otherwise establish diversity | Court held the declaration did not establish citizenship of Ariel Syndicate 1910 or Ariel Specialty; absent proof, dismissal with leave to amend was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilchrist v. State Farm Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004) (district courts must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction when concerns arise)
- Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013) (defective allegations of citizenship may be cured by appropriate record evidence)
- Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Comm. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1984) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should ordinarily be without prejudice and with leave to amend when allegations are deficient)
- McElmurray v. Consolidated Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cty., 501 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court may resolve jurisdictional defects on the pleadings without permitting discovery when no factual disputes require resolution)