King v. General Motors, LLC

Filing 3

ORDERED: Defendant General Motors, LLC shall have until June 2, 2017, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 5/18/2017. (PTB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES LARRY KING, as
personal representative for the Estate
of BELVIA JOAN KING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:17-cv-565-J34-PDB

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

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 Mortg. 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 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.”); see also Johansen v. Combustion
Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1328 n.4 (11th Cir. 1999). “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).

On May 17, 2017, Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) filed Defendant’s 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; Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 2;
Complaint). In the Notice, GM asserts that “this [C]ourt has diversity jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.” Notice at 2. However, despite this assertion, the Court is
unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
Initially, the Court notes that “[d]iversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed
amount, in this case $75,000.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th
Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). Here, the Notice’s allegations as to both party’s
citizenships are deficient. With respect to the citizenship of the Plaintiff, GM alleges only that
the decedent “was a resident Duval County, Florida.” Notice at 3. However, this allegation
does not sufficiently establish Plaintiff’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.1
Similarly, the underlying Complaint does not include any allegations as to Plaintiff’s
citizenship.

See Complaint at 1 (also noting that “the Decedent was a resident of

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.”). In order to establish diversity over a natural person,
a party must include allegations of the person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides.
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A natural person’s citizenship is

1

Although GM fails to provide sufficient information, GM is correct that Plaintiff’s citizenship is
based on that of the decedent, Belvia Joan King. When an individual acts in a representative capacity for one
who is deceased, that individual is deemed to be a citizen of the state of which the deceased was a citizen at
the time of death. Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph County, 22 F.3d 1559, 1562 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994); 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). Thus, “[w]here an estate is a party, the citizenship that counts for diversity purposes is that
of the decedent, and [she] is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which [she] was domiciled at the time of [her]
death.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007).
-2-

determined by his or her “domicile,” or “the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and
principal establishment . . . to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent
therefrom.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation and
citation omitted). Accordingly, the assertion in the Notice as to Plaintiff’s residence is
insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity purposes. See Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367
(“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish
diversity for a natural person.”); see also Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490
U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (“‘Domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence[.]’”).
GM’s allegation as to its own citizenship is also deficient.

Here, as GM is

denominated as an LLC, but alleges jurisdiction as if it is a corporation, the Court is unable
to determine GM’s citizenship. As such, clarification is necessary to establish this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. If GM is, indeed, a limited liability company, then it is reminded that “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 citizenship as a limited liability company,
GM must list the citizenship of each of its members, be it an individual, corporation, LLC, or
other entity. See id.

-3-

In light of the foregoing, the Court will give GM an opportunity to establish diversity
of citizenship between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction over the action.2
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant General Motors, LLC shall have until June 2, 2017, to provide the Court
with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on May 18, 2017.

lc24
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2

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, 293 F.3d at
1257; see also Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (noting that the “pleader must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating
the existence of jurisdiction”).
-4-