The Back Group, Inc. et al v. SME, Inc. USA

Filing 4

ORDER requiring response from Plaintiffs. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 4/12/2013. (RSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 13-60851-CIV-ROSENBAUM

THE BACK GROUP, INC., and
LAD CONSULTING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SME, INC. USA,
Defendant.
/

ORDER REQUIRING ACTION BY PLAINTIFF
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs The Back Group, Inc., and Lad Consulting,
Inc.’s Complaint [D.E. 1]. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and has noticed that it alleges as
a jurisdictional basis only diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See D.E. 1 at ¶ 2.
Federal courts enjoy only limited jurisdiction. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964,
974 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 872 (2005). Under Section 1332, district courts enjoy
original jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the value of $75,000
and, as purportedly applicable here, where the case arises between citizens of different states. When
jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the complaint “must specifically allege each party’s
citizenship, and these allegations must show that the plaintiff and defendant[s] are citizens of
different states.” Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp. Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979)
(citation omitted).1 If the complaint fails to meet these requirements and the case is appealed, it will,
1

Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), opinions
of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.

at best, be remanded to the district court for a determination of jurisdiction. See id. Obviously, if
the Court lacks jurisdiction, it may not hear the case. Therefore, the Court should resolve questions
regarding jurisdiction at the earliest possible opportunity.
In this case, all parties are corporations. A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it
has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. Flintlock Constr.
Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 673156, *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 26,
2013). Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs The Back Group, Inc., and Lad Consulting, Inc.,
“are Florida corporations conducting business in Broward County, Florida. D.E. 1 at ¶ 4. As for
Defendant SME, Inc. USA, the Complaint states that SME “is a North Carolina corporation
conducting business in Florida. A substantial portion of SME’s business consists on [sic] selling
lumbar loc braces in Florida . . . .” Id. at ¶ 5.
The Court construes these allegations to mean that Plaintiffs were incorporated in Florida and
likely have their principal place of business here, although the Complaint does not specifically so
state. Also missing from these allegations is any indication of SME’s principal place of business.
In view of the allegation that “[a] substantial portion of SME’s business consists on [sic] selling
lumber loc braces in Florida,” it is certainly possible that SME’s principal place of business is in this
state. In any case, the Court is not permitted to assume that diversity jurisdiction exists.
Therefore, if the parties meet the requirements of diversity, Plaintiffs shall file an amended
complaint containing the required diversity allegations by April 26, 2013. If the parties do not meet

-2-

the requirements of diversity, Plaintiffs shall file a notice of dismissal by April 26, 2013.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of April 2013.

ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies:
Counsel of Record

-3-