DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
SAM’S FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SUGAR BAY CLUB & RESORT CORP.,  
Defendants. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Civil No. 2016-43 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Eugenio W.A. Géigel-Simounet, Esq. 
Law Offices of Wilfredo A. Géigel 
St. Croix, VI 
 
For the plaintiff. 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
Before the Court is the motion of Sam’s Food Distributors, 
Inc. for default judgment.  
I. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On June 6, 2016, Sam’s Food Distributor, Inc. (“Sam’s 
Food”) filed a debt claim against Sugar Bay Club and Resort 
Corp. (“Sugar Bay”). Sugar Bay has not filed an answer to the 
complaint or a motion in this matter.   
On August 8, 2016, the Clerk of Court entered default 
against Sugar Bay. On June 15, 2017, Sam’s Food moved for 
default judgment. ECF No. 16.   
Case: 3:16-cv-00043-CVG-RM   Document #: 22   Filed: 03/23/18   Page 1 of 4
Sam’s Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sugar Bay Club & Resort Corp. 
Civil No. 16-43 
Order 
Page 2 
 
II. 
ANALYSIS 
Before entering a default judgment, the Court must consider 
its subject matter jurisdiction. Dambach v. United States, 211 
F. App'x 105, 109 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Furthermore, Defendants, in 
essence, had a meritorious defense to the action — one that the 
District Court would have been obligated to consider sua 
sponte before entering default judgment — the lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.”). If subject matter jurisdiction is 
lacking, the Court may dismiss the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks 
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 
action.”); cf. Mark IV Transportation & Logistics v. Lightning 
Logistics, Inc., 705 F. App'x 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen a 
court is considering whether to enter a default judgment, it may 
dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction . 
. . .”). 
In its complaint, Sam’s Food alleges that this Court may 
exercise diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. §1332. ECF 1, at ¶ 3. It also alleges that it “is a 
citizen and domiciled in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” Id. 
at ¶ 1. It further alleges that “Defendant Corporation is a 
citizen and resident of the Virgin Islands.” Id. at ¶ 2. 
Case: 3:16-cv-00043-CVG-RM   Document #: 22   Filed: 03/23/18   Page 2 of 4
Sam’s Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sugar Bay Club & Resort Corp. 
Civil No. 16-43 
Order 
Page 3 
 
Significantly, it appears that both parties are 
corporations. Corporations are citizens of both: (1) the state 
where they are incorporated; and (2) the state in which their 
principal place of business is located. See 28 U.S.C. 
§1332(c)(1). Thus, they may be citizens of more than one state. 
See id. Indeed, diversity jurisdiction is not adequately pled 
when the plaintiff’s allegations do not address both a 
corporation’s principal place of business and the corporation’s 
state of incorporation. See Guerrino v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 423 
F.2d 419, 421 (3d Cir. 1970)(“An allegation as to where . . . [a 
corporation] has its principal place of business is a 
jurisdictional requirement.”). It follows that merely pleading 
that a corporation is the citizen of a state based on its 
residency or domicile is insufficient. 
Here, the complaint alleges that the parties are each 
citizens of a territory and that the corporations reside or are 
domiciled there. The complaint does not allege where the parties 
are incorporated or where they have their principal place of 
business. Nothing in the complaint excludes the possibility that 
the plaintiff and the defendant may not be diverse because, for 
example, they were incorporated in the same state. As such, the 
allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish 
diversity jurisdiction.  
Case: 3:16-cv-00043-CVG-RM   Document #: 22   Filed: 03/23/18   Page 3 of 4
Sam’s Food Distributors, Inc. v. Sugar Bay Club & Resort Corp. 
Civil No. 16-43 
Order 
Page 4 
 
Furthermore, no other evidence of citizenship is provided 
in the motion for default judgment. 
 
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for default 
judgment and dismiss the complaint. The Court will grant Sam’s 
Food leave to file an amended complaint which properly alleges 
the citizenship of the parties. 
 
The premises considered; it is hereby 
ORDERED that the motion for default judgment is DENIED; and 
it is further 
ORDERED that by no later than 3:00 P.M. on April 6, 2018, 
Sam’s Food may file an amended complaint properly pleading the 
citizenship of the parties. Failure to do so may result in the 
dismissal of this action. 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
 
 
Case: 3:16-cv-00043-CVG-RM   Document #: 22   Filed: 03/23/18   Page 4 of 4