Verzi v. Do It Best Corp. et al

Filing 10

ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal filed by Do It Best Corp., Super Service Holdings, LLC. Defendants shall supplement the Notice of Removal in accordance with the above on or before April 21, 2017, or otherwise show cause by this date why this case should not be remanded for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on the presence of diversity jurisdiction at the time of removal. Failure to comply with this Order will result in this case being remanded without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/7/2017. (LMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JEFFREY VERZI, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-186-FtM-99CM DO IT BEST CORP. and SUPER SERVICE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants. / ORDER1 This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed on April 5, 2017. Subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on the presence of a diversity of citizenship between the parties. (Id. at ¶ 2). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are obligated to inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). A defendant may remove a civil case from state court provided the case could have been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity of citizenship 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). The defendant seeking removal bears the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction as of the date of the removal. See Moreland v. SunTrust Bank, No. 2:13-cv-242, 2013 WL 3716400, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2013) (citing Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010)); Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003)). Removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, and thus courts strictly construe removal statutes. See Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Any doubt as to the presence of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. See Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). With regard to citizenship, Defendants do not identify the citizenship of the individual members of the limited liability company, and a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member is a citizen. Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 816224, *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (citing Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the pleadings are required to provide the citizenship of each LLC member to invoke the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction)). Therefore, the Court cannot determine the citizenship of Super Service Holdings, LLC, or that diversity of jurisdiction is present. Defendants will be provided an opportunity to state the presence of federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendants shall supplement the Notice of Removal in accordance with the above on or before April 21, 2017, or otherwise show cause by this date why this case should 2 not be remanded for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on the presence of diversity jurisdiction at the time of removal. Failure to comply with this Order will result in this case being remanded without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 7th day of April, 2017. Copies: All Parties of Record 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?