Case No. 2:17-cv-312-FtM-99CM.

FTE NETWORKS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. CARLIE ANCOR, Defendant.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

FTE Networks, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by April Lynn Boyer , K & L Gates, LLP.

FTE Networks, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Yamilet Hurtado , K & L Gates, LLP.



This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) filed on June 7, 2017. Subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on the presence of diversity of citizenship between the parties. (Id. at ¶ 2). 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). 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).

Defendant fails to establish complete diversity of citizenship. An individual is a citizen where he is domiciled, not necessarily where he is a resident. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) ("Citizenship is equivalent to `domicile' for purposes of diversity jurisdiction."). Domicile is the place of an individual's true, fixed, and permanent home and to which he intends to return whenever he is absent therefrom. See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (citations omitted). A domicile is not synonymous with a residence, and it is possible for someone to reside in one place but be domiciled in another. See id. Plaintiff has failed to properly allege the citizenship of the individually-named Defendant, simply stating that Defendant resides in Parker, Colorado. (Doc. 1, ¶ 4). Therefore, the Court cannot determine that diversity of citizenship is present. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to state the presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

Accordingly, it is now


Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint on or before June 15, 2017. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by this date will result in this matter being closed.



1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases