You're viewing Docket Item 12 from the case King v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:

Case 2:13-cv-00344-JES-UAM Document 12 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 96








Case No: 2:13-cv-344-FtM-29UAM


This matter comes before the Court on review of the
Complaint (Doc. #1) filed on May 6, 2013,1 by plaintiff pro se
prior to obtaining counsel. Subject-matter jurisdiction is
premised on the presence of diversity of jurisdiction between
the parties. (Id., ¶¶ 1-6.) This requires complete diversity
of citizenship, and that the matter in controversy exceed the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d
1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff alleges that she is a “resident” of Naples,
Florida. (Doc. #1, ¶ 2.) “In order to be a citizen of a State

1 If the Court determines “at any time” that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Case 2:13-cv-00344-JES-UAM Document 12 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 97

within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person
must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled
within the State.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490
U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Pleading residency is not the equivalent
of pleading domicile. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v.
Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011); Corporate Mgmt.
Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297
(11th Cir. 2009); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1994). “A person’s domicile is the place of his true,
fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and 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)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to properly allege her citizenship.
Therefore, no diversity of jurisdiction is alleged.

The Court granted a voluntary dismissal of most of the
defendants, therefore only Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP and
Astrazeneca LP remain at issue. (See Doc. #11.) Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals, LP is alleged to be a Delaware limited
partnership doing business in the State of Florida. (Doc. #1, ¶
3.) The general and limited partners are identified as
Astrazeneca Ab, Zeneca, Inc., Astra USA, Inc., KBI Sub, Inc.,
Astrazeneca UK Limited, and Astra USA Holdings Corporation, and
each defendant is alleged to have a principal place of business


Case 2:13-cv-00344-JES-UAM Document 12 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 98

in New York, Delaware, New Jersey, London, England, and/or
Illinois. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff does not identify the
citizenship of the general and/or limited members of the
partnership, and a limited partnership itself is not a citizen
for jurisdictional purposes. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S.
185, 189, 195 (1990). Therefore, the Court cannot determine the
citizenship of the remaining defendants, or that diversity of
jurisdiction is present. Plaintiff will be provided an
opportunity to state the presence of federal jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

The Court further notes that the Complaint presents a
shotgun pleading2 with plaintiff essentially incorporating the
preceding paragraphs in each prior count into each subsequent
count. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 39, 49, 55, 68, 75, 85, 94.) Therefore,
the Complaint is also dismissed on this basis.

Accordingly, it is now

2 “The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts,
each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its
predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts
(i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations
and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear,
Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).


Case 2:13-cv-00344-JES-UAM Document 12 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 99

The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an Amended
Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 19th day

of September, 2013.

Counsel of record