Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11289/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michelle Carlson
Appellee
Columbia Farms of Georgia
Appellee
Tom Donovan
Appellee
Carey A. Fortson
Appellant
Robert C. Johnson
Appellee
Johnson Breeder Inc
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11289

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00102-CDL

CAREY A. FORTSON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COLUMBIA FARMS OF GEORGIA, 

JOHNSON BREEDER INC, 

TOM DONOVAN,

individually and in his capacity as Human 

Resource Department Manager, 

MICHELLE CARLSON,

individually and in her capacity as Assistant Manager,

ROBERT C. JOHNSON, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(September 25, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 15-11289 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Carey Fortson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit against 

his former employer and several individuals for fraudulent misrepresentation 

allegedly committed in separate litigation concerning his termination. Fortson 

argues that diversity jurisdiction existed over his claim against the individual 

defendants because one of the named defendants was a citizen of North Carolina, 

while Fortson was a resident of Georgia.1

 

We review a district court’s determination regarding subject matter 

jurisdiction de novo. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 408

(11th Cir. 1999). Federal courts are vested with original jurisdiction over claims 

between citizens of different states where the amount in question exceeds $75,000. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For federal diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties must 

be completely diverse, requiring all plaintiffs to be diverse from all defendants. 

Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412. 

Here, the district court did not err by dismissing Fortson’s state law claim 

against the individual defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because 

 1 Fortson does not contest the district court’s finding, adopted from the magistrate judge’s 

reports, that he failed to state a claim for fraud on the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(d). He also fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his state law claim 

against Columbia Farms for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, any arguments in these respects 

are abandoned, and we need not address the matters further. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 

870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se

litigant are deemed abandoned). 

USCA11 Case: 15-11289 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of all the parties. See id. 

Although one defendant may have been a citizen of North Carolina, this does not 

create diversity jurisdiction because Fortson noted that the other named defendants 

were all, like himself, residents of Georgia. In any event, Fortson had to allege 

diversity of citizenship, not just residency. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 

1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be 

alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”).

Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Fortson’s suit for 

lack of complete diversity, and we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11289 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 3 of 3