Grand Marquis, LLC v. United National Insurance Company

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ( Amended Complaint due by 2/26/2023.) Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 1/18/2023. See attached document for full details. (cqs)

Case 1:23-cv-20199-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-cv-20199-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
GRAND MARQUIS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Plaintiff Grand Marquis,
LLC’s Complaint, ECF No. [1]. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the record in this case,
the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, the abovestyled case is dismissed without prejudice.
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.
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

Case 1:23-cv-20199-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 23-cv-20199-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
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
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 1022). Further, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and
foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 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.

1

2

Case 1:23-cv-20199-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 23-cv-20199-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant. ECF No. [1]. The
Complaint states that “Grand Marquis is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida,” and that “United National is an insurance company
with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Thus, the Complaint fails to
sufficiently allege Plaintiff’s citizenship because it does not identify all members of the limited
liability company and its members’ citizenship. In addition, the Complaint also fails to sufficiently
allege whether Defendant has been incorporated. As such, although the Complaint specifies
Defendant’s principal place of business, the Court cannot entirely determine Defendant’s
citizenship. Accordingly, “the Court lacks sufficient information to satisfy the jurisdictional
inquiry.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is permitted to file an Amended Complaint
that properly alleges the basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction by January 26, 2023.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 18, 2023.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3