Case: 15-15475 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15475
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-61312-WJZ
RAYMOND H. PIERSON, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE S. ROGOW, J.D.,
BRUCE S. ROGOW, PA,
CYNTHIA GUNTHER, J.D.,
DOES 1 THROUGH 5, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 12, 2016)
Case: 15-15475 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond H. Pierson, III, appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his “First Amended Complaint,” which was the initial complaint filed
in the case, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to properly allege
diversity of citizenship of the parties. In Pierson’s “First Amended Complaint,” he
alleged that he was a citizen of California, that the individual defendants were
citizens of Florida, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. He also
alleged that defendant Rogow’s law firm, Bruce S. Rogow, PA, was a Florida
Corporation. Attached to his “First Amended Complaint,” Pierson included annual
for profit corporation reports from the Florida Secretary of State for Rogow’s law
firm from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014. The documents concerning Rogow’s law
firm indicated that the law firm had its current principal place of business in 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2014 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The district court dismissed Pierson’s “First Amended Complaint” for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because it failed to allege the principal place of
business of Rogow’s law firm. On appeal, Pierson contends that the district court
improperly dismissed his “First Amended Complaint” for lack of diversity
jurisdiction because the attachments to his complaint evidenced that Rogow’s law
firm was a Florida corporation and had its principal place of business in Florida.
2
Case: 15-15475 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Page: 3 of 5
He also asserts that district courts may look to both the pleadings and record as a
whole to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.1
We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). A federal court may
raise jurisdictional issues on its own initiative at any stage of litigation. Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1240, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006).
District courts have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity if the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, and the case is between citizens of different states.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity to exist there must be complete diversity:
“every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Triggs v. John Crump
Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). It is the responsibility of the
pleader to “affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.”
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). When invoking federal
jurisdiction based on diversity, those allegations must include the citizenship of
each party, so that the court is satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same
state as any defendant. Travaglio v. American Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268
(11th Cir. 2013).
1
Pierson alleged for the first time in his reply brief that the district court judge violated
the Code of Judicial Conduct in handling the case. We decline to address this argument because
it was raised for the first time in Pierson’s reply brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
874 (11th Cir. 2008).
3
Case: 15-15475 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Page: 4 of 5
Natural persons are citizens of the state where they are domiciled.
McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002). A corporation is a
citizen of its state of incorporation, and of the state where it has its principal place
of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation does not acquire the
citizenship of its affiliates. Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 94, 126 S.
Ct. 606, 616, 163 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2005). “The jurisdictional rule governing here is
unambiguous and it is not amenable to judicial enlargement.” Id. However, the
entire record may be looked to for the purpose of curing a defective averment of
citizenship when jurisdiction in federal court is based on diversity of citizenship.
Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1269. Additionally, if a district court concludes that it does
not have jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case without reaching the merits. Id.
We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Pierson’s “First
Amended Complaint” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the “First
Amended Complaint,” Pierson alleged that Rogow’s law firm was a Florida
corporation, but did not indicate its principal place of business. Nevertheless, the
Florida Secretary of State documents that Pierson attached to his complaint
evidenced that Rogow’s law firm had its current principal place of business in
2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014, in Florida. Moreover, Pierson alleged that he was a
citizen of California, the remaining defendants were citizens of Florida, and that
4
Case: 15-15475 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Page: 5 of 5
the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. (Id. at 5-6, 12). Accordingly, we
vacate the district court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
5