Prindle v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

Filing 4

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until December 2, 2013, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/6/2013. (KAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

TWYLA PRINDLE, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 3:13-cv-1349-J-34PDB

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On November 1, 2013, Defendant,
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (“Carrington Mortgage Services” or “Defendant”), filed
its Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1; Notice), removing this case from the Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. See Notice at 1. In the Notice,
Carrington Mortgage Services asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441. See id. Specifically, Carrington Mortgage
Services alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiff,
Twyla Prindle, is a citizen of Florida, while all members of Carrington Mortgage Services are
citizens of Delaware and California. See id. at 3. Carrington Mortgage Services bases its
citizenship allegation on the fact it is a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by
Carrington Mortgage Holdings, LLC, which is, in turn, a Delaware limited liability company

owned by Carrington Holding Company, LLC, and Darren Fulco, individually. See id.
According to Defendant, Carrington Holding Company is a Delaware limited liability
company, and Darren Fulco is a citizen of California. See id. However, because Defendant
has failed to identify the citizenship of Carrington Holding Company’s members, the Court
determines that Carrington Mortgage Services’s citizenship is not properly alleged in the
Notice. Therefore, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the action is not established.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, therefore, have an obligation to
inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d
1277, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2001). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties
have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See University of South Ala.
v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a
federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it
may be lacking.”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three
types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).
Federal district courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over cases involving citizens
of different states where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
$75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319
(11th Cir. 2001); Kirkland, 243 F.3d at 1280. The party removing an action originally filed
in state court to federal court bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists. See
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319; Kirkland 243 F.3d at 1281, 1281 n.5.

-2-

For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs
must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412. Relevant to this
action, “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, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited liability
company, a party must list the citizenship of each of the limited liability company’s members,
be it an individual, corporation, LLC, or other entity. See id. Since Carrington Holding
Company is a limited liability company, Defendant must identify the citizenship of each of
Carrington Holding Company’s members.
The Court also takes this opportunity to raise a different jurisdictional concern given
that Plaintiff has pled this case as a putative class action. See Complaint at 4-7 (Doc. No.
2). In the Notice, Defendant alleges diversity jurisdiction without addressing the jurisdictional
implications of the putative class action. See Notice at 2-7. The Court recognizes that
Defendant disputes that class certification would be appropriate here. Notice at 5 n.2.
Nevertheless, in light of the fact that Plaintiff has brought this action individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Court requests that Defendant provide
information establishing the propriety of the Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction over this
case as a putative class action.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Carrington Mortgage Services an
opportunity to identify Carrington Holding Company’s citizenship, and that this Court may
properly exercise jurisdiction over the instant action. Carrington Mortgage Services shall
provide adequate allegations regarding Carrington Holding Company’s citizenship as a

-3-

limited liability company. Additionally, Carrington Mortgage Services shall address the
propriety of jurisdiction in light of the fact that Plaintiff has pled this case individually and on
behalf of a class of persons alleged to be similarly situated.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall have until December 2, 2013, to provide the Court with sufficient
information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on this 6th day of November, 2013.

lc18
Copies:
Counsel of Record

-4-