NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-3186

___________

EVERSON FRANCIS,

Appellant

v.

AMANDA FELDER; PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE; HOMESITE INSURANCE; 

LORENZA STEVENS; MIDDLESEX MANAGEMENT, INC; SUN VALLEY PLAZA 

LLC; MURRAY HALPERN

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action Nos. 2-19-cv-07246 & 2-19-cv-08234)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 3, 2020

Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 5, 2020)

___________

OPINION*

___________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Everson Francis appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint. For the reasons discussed below, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment 

and remand for further proceedings.

In his amended complaint, Francis alleged that he submitted claims to his 

insurance company, Homesite Insurance, for damage to his home caused by an 

overflowing toilet, two instances of identity theft, and theft of personal property.1 Francis 

claims that Homesite, through its adjustor, Amanda Felder, denied each of these claims 

for “arbitrary and capricious” reasons. ECF No. 29 at ¶ 1. More specifically, according 

to Francis, Homesite improperly denied his claims without performing any investigation, 

knowingly misrepresented the terms of the insurance policy, failed to settle the claims 

when liability was clear, and made false statements in denying the claims. See id. 

Claiming that the District Court possessed diversity jurisdiction, Francis asserted statelaw claims of breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, and negligence, among 

many others. 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted. The 

Court observed that Francis’s complaint was “lengthy, repetitious, and difficult to 

follow.” ECF No. 49 at 3. The Court then ruled that, “[t]o the extent that this Court can 

1 Francis filed similar complaints in two actions, D.N.J. Civ. A. Nos. 2-19-cv-07246 & 2-

19-cv-08234. The District Court consolidated the two cases under No. 19-cv-07246. 

Francis then filed his amended complaint (before the defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss), which includes all of his claims. 
3

make sense of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are insufficient to 

support his claims.” Id. Francis filed a timely notice of appeal.2 In this Court, he has 

filed two motions to supplement the record.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However, we have an independent 

obligation to assure ourselves that the District Court also possessed jurisdiction. See

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998); United States v. Higgs, 

504 F.3d 456, 457 (3d Cir. 2007). In his operative amended complaint, Francis asserted 

jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, see ECF No. 29 at ¶ 2, and the District 

Court concluded that it possessed jurisdiction on that basis, see ECF No. 49 at 1; see 

generally 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, “‘no plaintiff may be a 

citizen of the same state as any defendant,’ and the amount in controversy must exceed 

$75,000.” GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 

2018) (alterations omitted) (quoting Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 

412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010)). Francis, as the plaintiff in this case, was required to plead the 

grounds for jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, 

LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015).

Under the record as it presently exists, we cannot determine whether the parties 

are entirely diverse. In Francis’s operative amended complaint, he did not allege his own 

2 Francis also filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. 

Because Francis did not file a timely new or amended notice of appeal encompassing the 

order denying his motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to consider that order. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249, 253–54 (3d Cir. 

2008).
4

citizenship, and he neither alleged the citizenship of the defendants nor stated that they 

were not citizens of his home state. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 800 F.3d at 107. In his 

initial complaint, he did allege his citizenship and that of Homesite, but stated nothing 

about the citizenship of defendant Amanda Felder, let alone the various defendants that 

he included for the first time in his amended complaint (see ECF No. 29 at ¶ 14). See

Schultz v. Cally, 528 F.2d 470, 473 (3d Cir. 1975) (“Even if plaintiff had properly 

alleged that he is a citizen of New Jersey and that Cally is a citizen of New York, the 

complaint would be fatally defective for failure to allege the citizenship of defendant 

Purcell.”). Thus, Francis’s jurisdictional allegations are deficient; however, these 

deficiencies may be curable through amendment. See GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront 

Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 36 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1653). 

Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand the case “to allow 

the plaintiff to [attempt to] remedy [his] inadequate allegations of diversity jurisdiction.” 

Id. 

Moreover, we note that the District Court dismissed the amended complaint on the 

ground that Francis’s factual allegations were insufficient. Should the Court determine 

that it does possess jurisdiction, it should also consider whether it would be appropriate to 

permit Francis to amend his claims. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 

111 (3d Cir. 2002); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that 

where a complaint is subject to dismissal “for a lack of factual specificity, [plaintiff] 

should be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, if he can, by amendment of 

the complaint” (quoting Darr v. Wolfe, 767 F.2d 79, 81 (3d Cir. 1985)). 
5

Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand for further 

proceedings. Francis’s motion to supplement the record is denied. See generally Burton 

v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 435 (3d Cir. 2013).