IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAGAP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,:Plaintiff,:CIVIL ACTION:v.::JOHN DOES 1-10, et al.,: No. 13-2929 Defendants.:ORDER AND NOW

, this

27

day of

June

,

2013

, it is hereby

ORDERED

:

th

1.That this case is

DISMISSED

 

without prejudice

 for lack of subject matter  jurisdiction.

1

2.The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

BY THE COURT:Berle M. Schiller, J.

 “Jurisdictional statutes are to be strictly construed and the burden of proof is upon the

1

 plaintiff to affirmatively establish diversity of citizenship.”

Vail v. Doe

, 39 F. Supp. 2d 477, 477(D.N.J. 1999). For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, “a plaintiff must specifically allegeeach party’s citizenship, and these allegations must show that the plaintiff and [each] defendantare citizens of different states.”

See Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp.

, Civ. A. No. 11-7303, 2013WL 487196, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2013) (alteration in original). “John Doe defendants destroydiversity when their citizenship cannot truthfully be alleged.”

 Kiser v. Gen. Elec. Corp.

, 831 F.2d423, 426 n.6 (3d Cir. 1987). The Complaint, which brings claims only against fictitious parties whose citizenship isunknown, states that the “Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1332 because there is diversity amongst the parties” and “Plaintiff only intends to suethose Doe defendants that are not residents of Pennsylvania.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with any information or allegations to support diversity jurisdiction,aside from an agreement not to sue “residents of Pennsylvania.” Likewise, the Complaintcontains allegations about the fictitious parties’ residences, not citizenship, which is insufficientto support diversity jurisdiction.

See Cong. of Racial Equal. v. Clemmons

, 323 F.2d 54, 58 (5thCir. 1963) (finding diversity did not exist because complaint described fictitious defendants as“non-residents of the State of Louisiana” and did not discuss citizenship). For these reasons, theCourt dismisses the case.

Case 2:13-cv-02929-BMS Document 5 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 1