Manning v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC et al

Filing 4

ORDER striking 1 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint curing the shotgun nature of the Complaint and curing the jurisdictional deficiencies on or before March 30, 2015. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/19/2015. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
LOIS PARDEE MANNING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:15-cv-320-J-34JRK

JANSSEN RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. 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, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). This obligation exists
regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. 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”).
On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Complaint (Doc. 1), asserting that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Complaint ¶ 1.
Plaintiff further asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she is “a citizen and resident of Suwannee County, Florida
. . . .” Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff brings this action against nine Defendants, three of which are limited
liability companies (LLC), three of which are corporations, and three of which appear to be

foreign companies. As to the three corporate Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a/ Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, id. ¶ 26, (2) Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
Jersey, id. ¶ 38, and (3) Bayer Corporation is an Indiana corporation with its principal place
of business in Pennsylvania, id. ¶ 54. Regarding the foreign companies (the German
Defendants), Plaintiff asserts that: (1) Bayer Pharma AG is a “pharmaceutical company
domiciled in Germany,” id. ¶ 45, (2) Bayer Healthcare AG is a “company domiciled in
Germany . . . ,” id. ¶ 62, and (3) Bayer AG is a “German chemical and pharmaceutical
company that is headquartered in . . . Germany,” id. ¶ 66. With respect to the three
Defendants identified as LLCs (LLC Defendants), Plaintiff states that: (1) Janssen Research
and Development LLC f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and
Development LLC (Janssen R&D, LLC) is “organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a
principal place of business” in New Jersey, id. ¶ 19, (2) Janssen Ortho LLC is “organized
under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business” in Puerto Rico, and is “a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson,” id. ¶ 32, and (3) Bayer Healthcare LLC is “duly formed
and existing under and by the virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
place of business located in the State of New Jersey,” id. ¶ 58. Plaintiff adds that Bayer
Corporation is the sole member of Bayer Healthcare LLC. Id. ¶ 59. Upon review of these
allegations, the Court is unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this
action because Plaintiff has inadequately pled the citizenship of two of the German
Defendants, as well as two of the LLC Defendants.

-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, for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, “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). A corporation,
however, “‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated
and of the State where it has its principal place of business.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.
77, 81 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)) (emphasis omitted). Thus, to sufficiently
allege the citizenship of an LLC, a party must list the citizenship of each of the LLC’s
members, but to allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party must identify the states of
incorporation and principal place of business. See Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1021-22; 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Here, Plaintiff identifies Janssen R&D, LLC and Janssen Ortho LLC
as limited liability companies, but incorrectly alleges their respective citizenships as though
they were corporations.1 See Complaint ¶¶ 19, 32. Accordingly, additional information
regarding the citizenship of each of the members of Janssen R&D, LLC and Janssen Ortho
LLC is necessary to determine the citizenship of those Defendants.2
In addition, as to Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Healthcare AG, Plaintiff framed her
allegations in terms of where these German Defendants are “domiciled,” such that it is

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff identifies Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC as a limited liability
company as well. However, Plaintiff adequately alleges the citizenship of Bayer Healthcare LLC. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Bayer Corporation is the sole member of Bayer Healthcare LLC, id. ¶ 59, and identifies
Bayer Corporation as an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, id. ¶ 54. Thus,
the Court is able to determine that Bayer Healthcare LLC is also a citizen of Indiana and Pennsylvania.
2

Plaintiff is advised that each member’s citizenship must be properly alleged, be it an individual,
corporation, LLC, or other entity.
-3-

unclear whether those allegations encompass the place of incorporation and the principal
place of business for those entities.3 If the German Defendants are corporations, then
Plaintiff must allege both the place in which each Defendant was incorporated or organized,
and the place where they each have their principal place of business. See Williams v. Mast
Biosurgery USA, Inc., No. 7:08-cv-114, 2008 WL 4185992, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 5, 2008)
("Section 1332(c)(1)'s definition of citizenship also applies to foreign corporations."). If any
of the German Defendants is an unincorporated entity, then Plaintiff must allege the
citizenship of each of that Defendant’s owners. See Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 232 F.3d 854, 860 (11th Cir. 2000) ("[U]nincorporated entities are attributed the
citizenship of their owners.").
Moreover, upon further review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an
impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun complaint “contains several counts, each one
incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where
most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic
Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).
Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task
of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular
cause of action asserted. See id. Here, each count in the Complaint incorporates by
reference all allegations of the preceding counts. See generally Complaint.

3

In contrast, Plaintiff alleges that Bayer AG is a German company, with its headquarters in
Germany. See Complaint ¶ 66. Generally, a corporation’s headquarters will constitute its principal place of
business. See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 93 (holding that a corporation’s principal place of business is the corporation’s
“nerve center,” which is usually the place where it maintains its headquarters). As such, this allegation is likely
sufficient to establish Bayer AG’s citizenship, although Plaintiff would be well-advised to more directly allege
Bayer AG’s principal place of business in her amended complaint.
-4-

In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are “altogether unacceptable.”
Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v. Randolph
County, 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun
pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases).

As the Court in Cramer

recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable
toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose
unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and
resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. When faced with the burden of deciphering a
shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative,
and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own
initiative); see also United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th
Cir. 2006) (“When faced with a shotgun pleading, the trial court, whether or not requested
to do so by a party’s adversary, ought to require the party to file a repleader.”) (citing Byrne
v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds as recognized
by Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011)).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint which properly establishes diversity of citizenship between the parties such that
this Court has jurisdiction over this action,4 and corrects the shotgun nature of the Complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
4

The party seeking to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional prerequisites are met. See McCormick v. Aderholt,
293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting
that the “pleader must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction”).
-5-

1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint curing the shotgun nature of the
Complaint and curing the jurisdictional deficiencies on or before March 30,
2015. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action.

3.

Defendants shall respond to any amended complaint in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on March 19, 2015.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

-6-