Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-30173/USCOURTS-ca5-24-30173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-30173

____________

First Assembly of God Church Incorporated of 

Leesville Louisiana, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:21-CV-378

______________________________

Before Dennis, Haynes, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This case involves an insurance dispute that arose in the wake of 

Hurricane Laura. It went to trial, and the jury reached a verdict in favor of 

the plaintiff. But all along, there was a problem with the jurisdictional 

pleadings below.1

 Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we “are duty-

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

1 We note too that the plaintiff’s statement of jurisdiction in its appellate brief does 

not provide a basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 21, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-30173 Document: 100-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2025
No. 24-30173

2

bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Union 

Planters Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004).

The operative complaint in this case alleges subject matter jurisdiction 

based on the diversity of the two corporate parties but does not adequately 

plead corporate citizenship. The diversity statute says that a corporation 

“shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it 

has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its 

principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But the operative complaint 

alleges only the “domicile” of each corporate party. That is not enough. 

MidCap Media Fin., LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 

2019) (“[A]llegations regarding the citizenship of a corporation must set out 

the principal place of business of the corporation as well as the state of its 

incorporation.” (quotation omitted)).

Fortunately, 28 U.S.C. § 1653 “allows us to overlook a party’s failure 

to plead diversity if a party can identify allegations and evidence in the record 

demonstrating diversity.” Id. at 315 (cleaned up) (quotation omitted). We 

therefore sent a letter to the parties asking them to do so. The parties’ 

responses represent that they are indeed diverse but fail to identify 

allegations and evidence in the record sufficient to demonstrate diversity. At 

oral argument, both parties again represented that they are diverse but 

acknowledged that the jurisdictional pleadings may be insufficient.

“[W]here jurisdiction is not clear from the record, but there is . . . 

reason to believe that jurisdiction exists,” remand to the district court for 

amendment of the jurisdictional allegations and supplementation of the 

record is appropriate. Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 872 F.2d 1221, 1228 (5th 

Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see 28 U.S.C. § 1653. That is the situation here.

Accordingly, we ORDER a limited remand to the district court to 

determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. If the district court 

Case: 24-30173 Document: 100-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2025
No. 24-30173

3

concludes that it has diversity jurisdiction, the Clerk of the district court shall 

promptly supplement the appellate record with copies of the new filings 

below and the district court’s opinion on jurisdiction and forward the 

supplemental record to this court. Upon return to this court, no further 

briefing will be necessary. The case will be returned to this panel for 

disposition on the merits. If the district court concludes that it lacks 

jurisdiction, then it must vacate its judgment and dismiss the case.

LIMITED REMAND.

Case: 24-30173 Document: 100-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2025