Brit UW Limited et al v. Precision Construction & Erectors, LLC et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER directing that the plaintiffs have until 12/27/2013, to amend the complaint to allege jurisdiction sufficiently, see 28 U.S.C. 1653; otherwise thislawsuit shall be dismissed without prejudice, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/3/13. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIT UW LIMITED and HISCOX )
DEDICATED CORPORATE MEMBER, )
LTD,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PRECISION CONSTRUCTION &
)
ERECTORS, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13cv813-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
The allegations of the complaint in this case are
insufficient to invoke this court's original jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).

To

invoke original jurisdiction based on diversity, the
complaint must distinctly and affirmatively allege each
party's citizenship.

See McGovern v. American Airlines,

Inc., 511 F. 2d 653, 654 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam).
The allegations must show that the citizenship of each
plaintiff is different from that of each defendant.

See

28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also 2 James Wm. Moore, et al.,

Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[5][b] at 8-16 (3d ed.
2006).
The complaint here is insufficient because it does
not indicate the citizenship of parties that are ‘limited
liability companies’: defendants Precision Construction
& Erectors, LLC, and Precision Contracting & Erection,
LLC.

“[L]ike a limited partnership, a limited liability

company is a citizen of any state of which a member of
the company is a citizen.”

Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.

Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th
Cir. 2004). The complaint must therefore allege “the
citizenships of all the members of the limited liability
company.”

Id.

(And if the entity consists of several

entities, the complaint must reflect the citizenship, or
citizenships, of each and every entity based on the
nature of that entity.)
Here, the complaint indicates only that the “members”
of these two limited liability companies are citizens of
Georgia.

It fails to indicate the nature of these

2

“members.”

If the member is a person, the complaint must

indicate the state of citizenship of that person.

If a

member is a corporation, then the complaint must allege
the citizenship of both the State of incorporation and
where

the

business.

corporation

has

its

principal

place

of

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2); American Motorist

Insur. Co. v. American Employers' Insur. Co., 600 F.2d
15, 16 & n. 1 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).

If the

member is a partnership, the complaint must indicate the
citizenship of the individual partners, both general and
limited.
(1990).

Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185
If the member is an unincorporated association,

the complaint must indicate the citizenship of each and
every one of its members.

Xaros v. U.S. Fidelity and

Guar. Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987).

If the

member is also a limited liability company, the complaint
must allege “[t]he citizenships of all members of the
limited liability company.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.

3

Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11 Cir.
2004).
***
It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court that the plaintiffs have until December 27,
2013,

to

amend

sufficiently,

the

see

complaint

28

U.S.C.

to
§

allege

1653;

jurisdiction

otherwise

lawsuit shall be dismissed without prejudice.
DONE, this the 3rd day of December, 2013.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

this