Mikes Roof Tile LLC v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
ORDERED: Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest must SUPPLEMENT the Notice of Removal on or before October 24, 2019, to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Hartford fails to comply, the Court will remand this case without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/10/2019. (AEH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MIKES ROOF TILE LLC, a/a/o Marilyn
Case No.: 2:19-cv-733-FtM-38MRM
COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST,
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s
Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). Mikes Roof Tile LLC sued Hartford in state court as the
assignee of Marilyn Soubirou.
Hartford cites diversity as the basis for this Court’s
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if the federal
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[A] federal court is obligated to
inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking” and should
do so “at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco
Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “A removing defendant bears the burden of
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.
proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972
(11th Cir. 2002). “To meet their burden, the defendants must show that the plaintiffs’
complaint, as it existed at the time of removal, provides an adequate basis for the exercise
of federal jurisdiction.” Adventure Outdoors, Inv. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1295
(11th Cir. 2008).
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the opposing
parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the diversity of citizenship is uncertain because
Hartford has not sufficiently pled Mikes Roof Tile LLC’s citizenship.
Hartford relies on Mikes Roof Tile’s allegation that it “is a Florida limited liability
company, authorized to conduct and was in fact conducting business in Collier County,
Florida.” (Doc. 1-1 at 1). But “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). Therefore, Hartford must show
that every member of Mikes Roof Tile is diverse from Hartford. See. Lincoln Prop. Co. v.
Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005); see also McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257
(11th Cir. 2002) (stating that citizenship is determined by domicile, not necessarily
residence). Because the Court has no information on the domiciles of Mikes Roof Tile’s
members, Hartford has not adequately pleaded diversity of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest must SUPPLEMENT the
Notice of Removal on or before October 24, 2019, to show cause why this case should
not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Hartford fails to comply, the
Court will remand this case without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 10th day of October, 2019.
Copies: All Parties of Record
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?