Alvarez v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 6/18/2021. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 6/2/2021. See attached document for full details. (kpe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-20893-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
JEANETTE ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. and
CONNECTED SERVICES
NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, ECF No. [18] (“Amended Complaint”), following the reassignment of this case to the
undersigned. The Court has carefully reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the
record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised.
Federal courts are “‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the
United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them
by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). As
such, a “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any
time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, “once a federal
court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.”
Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 410.

Case No. 21-cv-20893-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 21, 2020, in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. ECF No. [1-1]. On March 4, 2021,
Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc.—the sole defendant at the time—removed the case to federal
court. ECF No. [1]. On May 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, adding Defendant
Connected Services North America, LLC as a defendant. ECF No. [18]. The Amended Complaint
in this case states that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Id. ¶ 1. The Amended Complaint further alleges that, “[a]t all material times, Defendant
Connected Services [North America, LLC] is and was foreign for-profit limited liability company
licensed, authorized, and doing business in the State of Florida.” Id. ¶ 5.
District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are completely
diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “For a court to have
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), ‘all plaintiffs must be diverse from all
defendants.’” First Home Bank v. Net Zero LLC, No. 3:20-cv-150-J-34MCR, 2020 WL 802518,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412)). “The burden of
pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction
is properly challenged, that party also bears the burden of proof.” Ray v. Bird & Son & Asset
Realization Co., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975).1
“[F]or the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated business
association or entity, such as a general or limited partnership or a limited liability company, is not
a ‘citizen’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in its own right.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2
(citing Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987)). Rather, the

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
issued prior to October 1, 1981.

2

Case No. 21-cv-20893-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
longstanding rule is that “the citizenship of an artificial, unincorporated entity generally depends
on the citizenship of all the members composing the organization.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.
Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)). With regard to the existence of diversity jurisdiction, “a
limited partnership is a citizen of each state in which any of its partners, limited or general, are
citizens.” Id. (citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-96). “Therefore, in order to sufficiently allege the
citizenship of an unincorporated business entity, a party must list the citizenships of all the
members of that entity.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 (citing Rolling Greens MHP,
L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022).
The jurisdictional allegations set forth within Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are
insufficient because they fail to adequately establish the citizenship of Defendant Connected
Services North America, LLC. Specifically, Plaintiff does not identify the members of the “limited
liability company [or] their respective states of citizenship.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518,
at *2 (citing Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022). As explained above, however, “[t]o
sufficiently allege the citizenships of [] unincorporated business entities, a party must list the
citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company and all the partners of the limited
partnership,” and if the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction fails to do so, they cannot satisfy
their burden of establishing diversity of citizenship. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022.
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff maintains her position that the Court can exercise diversity
jurisdiction in this case, “the Court lacks sufficient information to satisfy the jurisdictional
inquiry,” and concludes that supplemental citizenship information is warranted. First Home Bank,
2020 WL 802518, at *2.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, on or before June 18, 2021,

3

Case No. 21-cv-20893-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a detailed statement setting forth the proper basis for
invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff should place particular emphasis on the issue
of Defendant Connected Services North America, LLC’s citizenship as an unincorporated business
entity and include information on the citizenships of all of its members. Failure to timely comply
will result in the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal without
prejudice, without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 2, 2021.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

4