Case: 18-12788 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12788
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00115-JRH-BKE
CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
PETRICE RICKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
CEO JIM DAVIS,
DR. FARR,
RNO REYNEE GALLUP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 10, 2019)
Case: 18-12788 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s order dismissing their pro se complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleged state law claims of
medical negligence, gross negligence, and the wrongful death of Daphne Lawrence
Ricks. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in finding that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were only minimally diverse.
We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
Barbour v. Haley,
471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006), and review for clear error
a District Court’s factual findings concerning jurisdiction, Bryant v. Rich,
530 F.3d
1368, 1377 (11th Cir. 2008).
District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions between
citizens of different states, or between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign
country, where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between all
plaintiffs and defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267
(1806). The party invoking jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of the parties as
of the time suit is filed in federal court. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co.,
735
F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013). A natural person is a citizen of the state in
which they are domiciled,
id. at 1269, and a corporation is a citizen of its state of
2
Case: 18-12788 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 3 of 4
incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1).
Plaintiffs appear to concede that the parties in this case are not completely
diverse.1 They argue, however, that complete diversity isn’t required for several
reasons. First, plaintiffs argue that their action should be allowed to proceed under
the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1335. If this were correct, minimal
diversity among the parties would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. See State
Farm & Cas. Co. v. Tashire,
386 U.S. 523, 530–31,
87 S. Ct. 1199, 1203–04
(1967). But the interpleader statute is inapplicable: there are not two or more
adverse claimants in this case who “are claiming or may claim to be entitled to . . .
money or property” or other benefits of a financial instrument. See 28 U.S.C. §
1335(a)(1). So this argument is unavailing.
Plaintiffs’ second argument for minimal diversity appears to be premised on
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which requires only minimal diversity
for class actions that meet specified criteria. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 2 We agree
with the District Court that CAFA is inapplicable as this case involves fewer than
1
On this and many other issues, plaintiffs’ position is far from clear. What is clear,
however, is that the parties are not completely diverse—several of the plaintiffs, and all of the
defendants, are domiciled in Georgia.
2
Again, this argument doesn’t exactly leap off the page of plaintiffs’ brief. But the
District Court addressed this possible jurisdictional ground, and plaintiffs refer to that portion of
the District Court’s order in their briefing.
3
Case: 18-12788 Date Filed: 07/10/2019 Page: 4 of 4
100 plaintiffs and the aggregated claims do not exceed $5,000,000. So this
argument is also unavailing.
Because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case,
we affirm the District Court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims.
AFFIRMED.
4
