AV GROUP BOSTON, INC. v. AVB ENTERPRISE LLC,

Filing 48

Second Order Requiring Amended Allegations re 46 Order Signed by Senior Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 2/2/2024. See attached document for full details. (pc)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
AV Group Boston, Inc., Plaintiff,

)
)
v.
) Civil Action No. 22-21920-Civ-Scola
)
AVB Enterprise LLC d/b/a Bonefly, )
Defendant.
)
Second Order Requiring Amended Allegations
On January 24, 2024, the Court entered a sua sponte order identifying
deficiencies in the jurisdictional allegations of the Plaintiff’s amended complaint
(ECF No. 18). (Order, ECF No. 46.) The Court’s order directed the parties to file
materials amending their jurisdictional allegations to address the deficiencies
by January 31, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the parties attempted to comply
with the Court’s order by filing a joint statement as to diversity (ECF No. 47).
Based on the joint statement, the jurisdictional allegations for the Plaintiff have
been properly supplemented. However, the jurisdictional allegations as to the
Defendant remain defective.
As provided in the Court’s prior order, “because Bonefly is a limited
liability company, the complaint must allege all the members of Bonefly, along
with each member's respective citizenship.” (ECF No. 46) (citing Rolling Greens
MHP v. Comcast SCH Holdings, LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th Cir. 2004).)
However, the joint statement as to diversity remains vague. It does not specify
whether the member identified in the statement, “Michael D Arama”, is the sole
member or whether there are additional members. If the Defendant has other
members that are individuals or entities, such members must also be identified
in the parties’ joint submission, along with their citizenship. If Mr. Arama is the
sole member, the joint submission should specify that as well.
Additionally, the joint statement provides an address for Mr. Arama
instead of alleging the citizenship of the member. Once again, as noted in the
Court’s prior order requiring amended citizenship allegations, it is the
citizenship, or domicile, of an individual party that is the relevant inquiry, not
his residence. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341–
42 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Domicile is not synonymous with residence; one may
temporarily reside in one location, yet retain domicile in a previous residence.”);
Crist v. Carnival Corp., 410 F. App’x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that
an allegation that a party is a “resident” of a State is “insufficient for diversity
jurisdiction purposes because residency is not the equivalent of citizenship”).

Accordingly, it is not enough to allege that the Defendant’s member has an
address in the State of Florida because these allegations fail to identify the
citizenship of the member.
In short, based on the allegations in the joint statement as to diversity,
the Court is still unable to ascertain whether it may exercise subject matter
jurisdiction in this case. The Court will grant the parties one additional
opportunity to submit materials adequately alleging subject matter
jurisdiction, which must be filed by February 8, 2024. If the parties fail to
provide the facts necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the
amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the pleadings, as necessary, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, albeit without prejudice.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 2, 2024.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge