Brockman et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/9/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
RICHARD JOSEPH BROCKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-2230-WSD
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order
to Show Cause [11].
I.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff Richard Joseph Brockman, Jr. (“Plaintiff”),
proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
(“Ocwen LLC”), BCHH, Inc (“BCHH”), and First Ohio Banc & Lending, Inc.
(“First Ohio”) (collectively, “Defendants”). In his Complaint [1], Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants improperly and falsely reported negative information concerning
Plaintiff’s credit history. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract (Count I), negligence and malpractice (Count II), defamation by libel
(Count III), and litigation expenses under Georgia law (Count IV).
On July 19, 2013, the Court, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, issued an
order (the “Show Cause Order”) addressing the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter. The Court found that, although not explicit in the Complaint, the
Court could have only diversity jurisdiction because the Complaint asserts only
state law causes of action. The Court further found, however, that the Complaint
failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient
facts to show the citizenship of Defendants. The Court specifically noted that
Plaintiff failed to allege the principal places of business of BCHH and First Ohio,
both of which are corporations, and that Plaintiff failed to allege the citizenship of
the members of Ocwen LLC, a limited liability company. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to identify the citizenship of each Defendant.
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed his response to the Show Cause Order.
In it, Plaintiff asserts that BCHH is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business in Pennsylvania, and that First Ohio is an Ohio corporation with
its principal place of business in Ohio. Plaintiff does not identify the members of
Ocwen LLC or identify the citizenship of Ocwen LLC’s members. Plaintiff asserts
that this information is not available to him, and he attaches documents showing
the addresses of Ocwen LLC’s managers.
2
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh Circuit
consistently has held that “a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well
settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
As discussed in the Show Cause Order, it is clear, and Plaintiff does not
dispute, that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this action, asserting only
state law causes of action, only if there is diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. Id. “Diversity
jurisdiction, as a general rule, requires complete diversity—every plaintiff must be
diverse from every defendant.” Palmer Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cnty., 22 F.3d
1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994). “Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined at
the time the suit is filed.” MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239
(11th Cir. 2005). “The burden to show the jurisdictional fact of diversity of
3
citizenship [is] on the . . . plaintiff.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160,
1171 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Slaughter v.
Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359 F.2d 954, 956 (5th Cir. 1966)).
In his response to the Show Cause Order, Plaintiff has shown that BCHH is
a citizen of Pennsylvania and that First Ohio is a citizen of Ohio. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff has failed, however, to show the citizenship of Ocwen LLC,
a limited liability company. “[A] limited liability company is a citizen of any state
of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.
Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff
has not identified the members of Ocwen LLC or the citizenship of the members.
The fact that this information may not be available to Plaintiff does not
excuse Plaintiff from his obligation to plead it to establish the Court’s jurisdiction.
Cf. Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2007)
(explaining that “a plaintiff bringing an original action is bound to assert
jurisdictional bases under Rule 8(a)”). Because Plaintiff has not shown the
citizenship of Ocwen LLC, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden “to show the
jurisdictional fact of diversity of citizenship,” and this action is required to be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See King, 505 F.3d at 1171
(quoting Slaughter, 359 F.2d at 956); see also Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., No.
4
11-15292, 2013 WL 4406389, at *2–3 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013) (publication
pending) (holding that court must dismiss action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction unless pleadings or “sworn” evidence establishes jurisdiction).
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2013.
1
If Plaintiff is able to provide the jurisdictional information about Ocwen LLC that
is required, he may seek to file a new complaint.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?