CFS Services, LP v. Ameritech Roofing Systems Inc.
ORDERED: Plaintiff CFS Services, LP's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before September 16, 2020. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing this case. Defendant Ameritech Roofing Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or For a More Definite Statement is (Doc. 16) DENIED without prejudice as moot. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/9/2020. (AEH)
Case 2:20-cv-00129-SPC-MRM Document 24 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 90
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CFS SERVICES, LP, a Texas Limited
Case No.: 2:20-cv-129-FtM-38MRM
AMERITECH ROOFING SYSTEMS
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of Plaintiff CFS
Services, LP’s (“CFS”) Complaint. (Doc. 1). CFS sues Ameritech Roofing Systems, Inc.
for state law contract claims, citing diversity jurisdiction. Yet because CFS has failed to
provide the Court with sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction, the
Complaint is due to be dismissed.
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they are “obligated to
inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of
S. Ala. V. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In an action filed directly
in federal court, the plaintiff must plead and prove jurisdiction. See King v. Cessna Aircraft
Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007). Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over
a matter if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs,
Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
Case 2:20-cv-00129-SPC-MRM Document 24 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID 91
and there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a);
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).
citizenship, as a limited partnership, is problematic here.
The citizenship of a partnership is not determined by the state of organization and
principal place of business, as with a corporation, but rather by the citizenship of each of
its general and limited partners. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187-88
(1990). Plaintiff alleges it “is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State
of Texas.” (Id. at ¶ 1). This allegation fails to show what limited partners exist and their
citizenship. Thus, on the face of the Complaint, it is unclear the diversity jurisdiction
exists. The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend its pleading and establish jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
1. Plaintiff CFS Services, LP’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before
September 16, 2020. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing
2. Defendant Ameritech Roofing Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or For a
More Definite Statement is (Doc. 16) DENIED without prejudice as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 9th day of September, 2020.
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?