GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARIA HARRIS (2025)

BY THE COURT:

Mark Martin (“Mark”), Shannon Martin (“Shannon”), and Classic City Clydesdales LLC (“Classic City”) appeal from the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Grange Insurance Company's (“Grange Insurance”) motion for summary judgment. The court granted Grange Insurance's motion in part and declared that Grange Insurance had no duty to defend Shannon or Classic City in an underlying state-court action brought against Shannon and Classic City by Maria Harris. The court denied the motion in part to the extent that Grange Insurance sought a declaration that it had no duty to indemnify either Shannon or Classic City because that issue was not yet ripe for review.

On appeal, we issued a jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asking whether the relevant pleadings sufficiently alleged the parties’ citizenships, so as to invoke the district court's diversity jurisdiction in the first instance.

The complaint did not sufficiently allege the parties’ citizen-ships. First, although it alleged that Grange Insurance was incorporated in Ohio, it did not allege the principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Second, it alleged the residences of Mark, Shannon, and Harris, not their domiciles nor their citizenships. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013) (providing that to establish diversity jurisdiction with respect to a natural person, the pleadings must allege the person's citizenship or domicile, and an allegation of residence is insufficient). Lastly, it did not allege the citizenship of Classic City or even identify that LLC's members. See Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011) (providing that an LLC is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen, and to sufficiently allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a party must identify the citizenships of the members of the LLC).

The parties jointly respond to the JQ, requesting to correct the record on appeal with a joint stipulation as to the parties’ citizenships pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(A). See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(A) (providing for certification of a supplemental record on stipulation of the parties). The parties stipulate that (1) Grange Insurance is a citizen of Ohio; (2) Mark, Shannon, and Classic City are citizens of Georgia; and (3) Harris is a citizen of Georgia. The parties assert that this stipulation would cure the deficient allegations of the parties’ citizenships.

However, the stipulation is unsworn and signed only by counsel for the parties. See Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1269-70 (providing that unsworn statements, alone, are insufficient to establish a party's citizenship). The parties also did not file a motion to supplement the record or amend the pleadings, despite the JQ stating that they should submit any such necessary motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (providing that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in this Court or in the district court); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2000) (providing that we have discretion to allow the parties to supplement the record on appeal with information not reviewed by the district court).

Moreover, even if we were to accept the parties’ stipulation, the stipulated facts would not cure the deficient allegation of Grange Insurance's citizenship. The stipulation failed to include Grange Insurance's state of incorporation and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

Because the record does not resolve whether diversity jurisdiction exists and the parties have not resolved that issue on appeal, remand is necessary. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (11th Cir. 2004); Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1228 (11th Cir. 2017) (“In the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”).

Accordingly, this appeal is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of determining the parties‘ citizenships and whether diversity jurisdiction existed when this action was filed in the district court.

If the district court determines that the parties were completely diverse, then it should enter an order to that effect and return the record, as supplemented, to this Court for further proceedings. If the district court determines that complete diversity did not exist, then it should vacate its judgment and dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.