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)

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