Fox et al v. Samano et al

Filing 7

ORDER -- The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before Tuesday, October 31, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/24/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RASHELLE FOX; and FOX WELLNESS,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-1766-Orl-37TBS

GREGORY PAUL SAMANO, II;
SAMANO AESTHETICS, LLC; and
SAMANO FAMILY PRACTICE, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
Invoking

the

Court’s

diversity

jurisdiction,

Plaintiff

initiated

this

breach-of-contract action on October 12, 2017. (Doc. 1.) Upon review, the Court finds that
the Complaint is due to be dismissed sua sponte because it insufficiently alleges subject
matter jurisdiction and is an impermissible shotgun pleading.
To begin, Plaintiff has failed to properly allege her own citizenship and that of
Defendant Gregory Paul Samano, II (“Mr. Samano”). Instead, she alleges that:
(1) Mr. Samano has an address in Winter Park, Florida (id. ¶ 3); and (2) she is “a resident
of the State of Georgia” (id. ¶ 4). But residence alone is insufficient to establish an
individual’s citizenship. Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013); see
also Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is
the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural
person.”). Rather, the citizenship of an individual is determined by domicile, which is
-1-

established by residence plus an intent to remain. Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v.
Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989).
Next, Plaintiff has insufficiently alleged the citizenship of those parties that are
limited liability companies—Plaintiff Fox Wellness, LLC; Defendant Samano Aesthetics,
LLC; and Defendant Samano Family Practice, LLC (collectively, “LLC Parties”). (See
Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2, 5.) For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of an LLC is
determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Rolling Greens MHP, LLC v. Comcast
SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). An LLC is a citizen of any state
where one or more of its members is a citizen. Id. Here, Plaintiff fails to identify the
citizenship of each member of the LLC Parties; rather, she incorrectly alleges their
principal place of business as if they were incorporated entities. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2, 5.) These
deficient jurisdictional allegations require repleader.
Lastly, the Complaint is also an impermissible shotgun pleading, as “each count
adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all
that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” Weiland
v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). Such pleadings
impose on the Court the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies to determine which facts
are relevant to which causes of action. See id. at 1323. Described as “altogether
unacceptable,” by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, when a shotgun
pleading is filed in this Court, repleader is required. Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263
(11th Cir. 1997); see also Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1125–28
(11th Cir. 2014). If the Court does not require repleader, then “all is lost.” Johnson Enters.
-2-

of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, each
successive count in the Complaint carries with it all that came before. (See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 30,
38, 43, 47, 54, 59.)
Once again, the Court is compelled to remind counsel that federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction and that it is incumbent upon counsel seeking to practice in the
federal courts to sufficiently inform themselves of the jurisdictional facts which must
exist, and be properly pled, in order to invoke subject matter jurisdiction. The waste of
judicial resources imposed by the required sua sponte review and rejection of inadequate
jurisdictional allegations, especially in diversity cases, is becoming intolerable and the
Court will consider the imposition of sanctions in appropriate cases going forward. See,
e.g., Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017), Doc. 5; see
also Eaton v. Vista Outdoors, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-1096-Orl-37KRS, 2017 WL 3033782
(M.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2017); Ranieri Partners, LLC v. Matheson, No. 6:15-cv-1606-Orl-37DAB,
2015 WL 12861140 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2015); Bristol v. Depuy Synthes Prods., LLC,
No. 6:15-cv-464-Orl-37DAB, 2015 WL 12853078 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

On or before Tuesday, October 31, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified in this Order. Failure to
file may result in closure of this action without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 24, 2017.

-3-

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-