Young v. Figueroa et al
Filing
7
ORDERED: On or before February 27, 2024, the parties shall each file the disclosure statement required by Rule 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. See Order for details and link to form. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/6/2024. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
LYLE R. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 3:24-cv-118-MMH-LLL
JOSE M. FIGUEROA and
JF TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
Jurisdictional 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.”). “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). 1
Here, the Court’s diversity jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. However, the jurisdictional allegations concerning the citizenship of
one or more parties appear to be defective for the reason(s) indicated below:
Diversity. The pleading fails to adequately allege the citizenship of the
following parties: Plaintiff Lyle R. Young and Defendant JF
Transportation, LLC.
It is insufficient to allege citizenship in the negative, i.e., that a party
is not the citizen of a particular state. See Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S.
322, 324–25 (1888); AFC Franchising, LLC v. Purugganan, No. 20-13849AA, 2021 WL 1541511, at *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021); Meyerson v.
Showboat Marina Casino P’ship, 312 F.3d 318, 320–21 (7th Cir. 2002).
Individuals. A natural person is a party to this case and the pleadings set
forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of that person. To establish
diversity over a natural person, a complaint must include allegations of the
person’s citizenship, not where he or she resides. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30
F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d
1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Residence alone is not enough.”). Citizenship is
based on an individual’s domicile, which requires both residence and “‘an
The failure to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction in this case is certainly not
unique. See Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL 11219132, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading
challenge for the Bar.”). The all-too-common failure of counsel to even consider, much less
properly address “the jurisdictional requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of
judicial resources that cannot continue.” Id. Indeed,
[t]he U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest
district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent
screening cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of
deficiencies, then rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause
orders is time that could and should be devoted to the substantive work of the
Court.
Id. at *1 n.4. As such, in an endeavor to reduce the time spent drafting orders on routine
jurisdictional defects, the Court utilizes this form to identify the issues that must be corrected.
The Court strongly encourages counsel to review the applicable authority on federal subject
matter jurisdiction prior to any future filings in federal court. See id. at *1-2 (bulleting several
“hints” on how to allege federal diversity jurisdiction properly).
1
2
intention to remain there indefinitely . . . .’” See Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1269
(quoting McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002)); see
also Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989).
The pleading is deficient because although it uses the word citizenship,
the pleading cites to the individual’s residence in support such that the
Court cannot determine whether the pleader appreciates the distinction
between residence and citizenship.
Unincorporated Entity. A partnership, limited liability company (LLC),
syndicate, or other unincorporated association is a party, and the pleadings fail
to identify all of the members or partners of that entity. An unincorporated
business association or entity is not a “citizen” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in its
own right. See Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guaranty Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th
Cir. 1987).
Instead, “the citizenship of its members [or partners] is
determinative of the existence of diversity of citizenship.” Id. Therefore, to
sufficiently allege the citizenship of this entity, a party must list the
citizenships of all members or partners of that entity. See Rolling Greens MHP,
L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam); see also Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d
1079, 1089 (11th Cir. 2010); Xaros, 820 F.2d at 1181.
The pleading is deficient because a party is identified in the caption as
an LLC, partnership, or other unincorporated entity but in the body of
the pleading is alleged to be a corporation. An entity cannot be both an
unincorporated entity and a corporation. Clarification is needed. Upon
identifying the correct business structure of the entity, its citizenship
must be alleged based on the principles identified in this Order.
The pleading is deficient because, although it identifies the entity’s
members, it fails to properly allege their citizenship. Where a member of
the party is also an unincorporated entity, its members must also be
identified continuing on through however many layers of partners or
members there may be. See D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P.
v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 125-27 (1st Cir. 2011); see also Meyerson, 312
F.3d at 320-21.
The pleading is deficient because the Court must receive information
regarding the citizenship of all members of an unincorporated entity, not
just its managing members.
3
The pleading is deficient because the materials cited in support of the
membership allegations do not actually support those allegations. Most
often, this occurs when a party relies on records that identify an entity’s
“managers.” Managers are not necessarily members.
Corporation. A party to this case is a corporation. A corporation is a citizen
“of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has
its principal place of business.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The pleading is
deficient because:
The pleading does not state the respective state(s) of incorporation.
Note that it is insufficient to merely allege that an entity is a “foreign”
corporation. See Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 600
F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979) 2; see also Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas,
559 F. App’x 803, 805 n.5 (11th Cir. 2014).
The pleading does not adequately identify the principal place of
business. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010).
Estate. One or more of the parties is named as a personal representative of
an estate, and the citizenship of the decedent is not properly alleged. See King
v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Where 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.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
Trust. The citizenship of a trust is relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry in
this case. 3 The trust appears to be a traditional trust but the citizenship of its
trustee or trustees is not identified. A traditional trust is one where there is “a
fiduciary relationship regarding property where the trust cannot sue and be
sued as an entity under state law.” Alliant Tax Credit 31, Inc. v. Murphy, 924
F.3d 1134, 1143 (11th Cir. 2019). Such a trust “holds the citizenship of its
trustee, not of its beneficiaries.” Id. Clarification is needed to explain whether
the trust is in fact a traditional trust, as determined by the law of the state
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
2
This typically occurs when an unincorporated entity is a party to the case and one of
its members is a trust.
3
4
where it was formed. If so, the trustees of the trust and their respective
citizenships must be alleged. 4
In light of the foregoing, the Court is unable to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over this action and additional information is needed. Significantly,
when actions are removed to federal court, Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rule(s)) requires each party to file a disclosure statement that
names, and identifies the citizenship of, “every individual or entity whose
citizenship is attributed to that party . . . .” See Rule 7.1(a)(2)(A). As such, and
to resolve the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry, the Court will set a deadline for the
parties to file their respective Rule 7.1 disclosures.
In completing the
disclosures, the parties must identify their citizenship consistent with the
principles discussed above. 5
This includes specifying the state(s) of
In contrast, where the “trust” label has been applied to an unincorporated entity that
itself can sue and be sued, as permitted under the laws of some states, then the entity
“possesses the citizenship of all its members.” See Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods,
Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1016 (Mar. 7, 2016).
4
Carefully ascertaining the citizenship of the parties and whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action is more than just an academic exercise, as is
evident from two Eleventh Circuit decisions issued in 2017. See Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg.
Materials Corp of Am., 849 F.3d 1313, 1316-1317 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (vacating summary
judgment order after three years of litigation where court determined on appeal that the
pleadings below had not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of a defendant limited liability
company, and upon further inquiry, found that the defendant limited liability company had a
non-diverse member); see also Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d
1218, 1222, 1228 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) (discussing whether sanctions were warranted in
a case where summary judgment was reversed on appeal after the appellate court discovered
that the pleadings did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, leading to
the realization that there was no diversity jurisdiction) (“While the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction in this scenario are complicated, they are the law. No party in this case acted with
bad intentions, but the result was a colossal waste of time and effort. We trust that the damage
done to the parties' credibility, finances, and time is enough of a sanction to curb their conduct
and to serve as a warning to future diversity jurisdiction litigants. In the end, when the parties
do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the
5
5
incorporation and principal place of business of any corporation and identifying
the citizenship, not residence, of any individual. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
On or before February 27, 2024, the parties shall each file the disclosure
statement required by Rule 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 of the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida.
The parties must use the Disclosure
Statement Form found on the Court’s website here and complete the Form
consistent with the directives of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on February 6, 2024.
requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the
unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”).
6
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?