In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13298

____________________

JOHN NELSON PATRICK MCEACHERN, 

BLUE DEALER SERVICES, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

E.R.J. INSURANCE GROUP, INC., 

d.b.a. American Heritage Insurance Services,

PABLO CREEK SERVICES, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-00023-BJD-JRK

USCA11 Case: 23-13298 Document: 26-2 Date Filed: 05/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Order of the Court 23-13298

____________________

Before BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

We issued a jurisdictional question about the district court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and, specifically, 

whether the relevant pleadings sufficiently alleged subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Appellants John Nelson Patrick McEachern and Blue Dealer 

Services, Inc. filed a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which 

failed to include any jurisdictional allegations. We are not persuaded by the appellants’ argument that we can look through their

motion to confirm to a complaint filed by another party in a separate but related case to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Travaglio 

v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (stating that 

the party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenships of the parties at the time suit is filed in federal court). And we 

decline to take judicial notice of diversity allegations in a complaint 

filed in a different case. See Shahar v. Bowers, 120 F.3d 211, 214 (11th 

Cir. 1997) (characterizing the taking of judicial notice as “a highly 

limited process”).

Further, although the appellants suggest that they would 

amend the motion to confirm pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 to include jurisdictional allegations, they have not filed a motion to 

amend or stated what they would include in such a motion. When, 

as here, we cannot determine whether there was, in fact, complete 

USCA11 Case: 23-13298 Document: 26-2 Date Filed: 05/22/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-13298 Order of the Court 3

diversity of citizenship, we remand for proceedings on that issue. 

See 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, we REMAND this appeal to the district court 

for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties 

and whether diversity jurisdiction existed. See Rolling Greens MHP, 

L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022-23; Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp. Ins. Co., 

600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979). If the district court determines that 

the parties are completely diverse in citizenship, 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 rulings and dismiss the action. See Am. Motorists, 600 F.2d at 16. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13298 Document: 26-2 Date Filed: 05/22/2024 Page: 3 of 3