As is sometimes the case, the plaintiff teased us with a bare, tantalizing and somewhat mysterious allegation that she is merely a "resident of the State of Florida."
Ok, I'm interested, and willing to be bicuriously diverse (I tried that once in college).
But what about citizenship?
Are you a lucky Canucky like our future President from Texas?
To add further intrigue and a dash of exotica, the plaintiff raised more questions than she answered:
On remand, the district court ordered Travaglio to respond to the jurisdictional deficiencies we identified in her complaint. When Travaglio once again did not respond, the court scheduled a teleconference, but neither Travaglio nor her counsel participated. Nonetheless, the district court found that, “when the record is considered in its entirety, . . . Travaglio is completely diverse from” the defendants. The basis for this conclusion was the same statement from Travaglio’s brief to which the defendants had referred us, which reads in full: “Plaintiff’s primary residence was, and still is, Florida, although plaintiff maintained a temporary residence in Ohio.”Ohio? "Temporary residence"?
(You had me at "primary residence.")
What does all this mean?
It's all too much, or to the 11th Circuit, too little:
In short, the only statement in the record that arguably could be read to demonstrate Travaglio’s citizenship is an unsworn statement in a brief. Because that statement is not evidence, we cannot rely solely upon it to decide that subject matter jurisdiction exists. As a result, we cannot agree that there is adequate evidence in the record to overcome Travaglio’s deficient jurisdictional pleadings.In other words: welcome to state court you temporary Ohio resident!