YP Texas Region Yellow Pages, LLC et al v. Image Advertising, Inc.
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER that the 1 Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/12/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
YP TEXAS REGION YELLOW
PAGES, LLC f/k/a
SOUTHWESTERN BELL
YELLOW PAGES, INC. d/b/a
AT&T ADVERTISING
SOLUTIONS et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
1:13-cv-2758-WSD
IMAGE ADVERTISING, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint [1].
I.
BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2013, Plaintiffs YP Texas Region Yellow Pages, LLC f/k/a
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Advertising Solutions, YP
Western Directory, LLC f/k/a Pacific Bell Directory d/b/a AT&T Advertising
Solutions, and YP Southeast Advertising & Publishing, LLC f/k/a Bellsouth
Advertising &Publishing Corporation d/b/a AT&T Advertising Solutions
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action arising from the alleged breach of
contractual obligations by Defendant Image Advertising, Inc. (“Defendant”).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts state law claims for statement of account, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.
On September 12, 2013, the Court, after reviewing Plaintiffs’ Complaint,
issued an order [3] (the “September 12th Order”) addressing the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction over this matter. The Court found that, as alleged 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 Plaintiffs failed to
identify, and allege the citizenship of, their members and thus failed to allege
sufficient facts to show their own citizenship. The Court specifically explained
that the citizenship of a limited liability company, like each Plaintiff, is based on
the citizenship of its members. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file, on or before
September 30, 2013, either an amended complaint alleging their citizenship or
evidence establishing their citizenship.
On September 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking additional time to
comply with the September 12th Order. The Court granted the motion and
2
extended Plaintiffs response deadline to October 30, 2013. Plaintiffs did not
thereafter comply with the September 12th Order.1
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 September 12th Order, it is clear, and Plaintiffs do not
dispute, that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter, 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
1
On November 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “Consent Judgment” [7].
Although not accompanied by a motion or other paper, the filing is signed by
Plaintiffs’ counsel and a non-attorney purporting to represent Defendant, and it
appears to be a proposed judgment for the Court’s consideration. The filing does
not mention the September 12th Order or show any facts pertaining to the Court’s
jurisdiction.
3
$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
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)).
“[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). Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails
to show the citizenship of any Plaintiff. Although Plaintiffs are alleged to be
“corporations” with their principal places of business in Missouri, California, and
Georgia, each Plaintiff’s name plainly shows that it is not a corporation but a
limited liability company. Plaintiffs do not identify their members or the
citizenship of their members.2
2
Even if Plaintiffs are, in fact, corporations, Plaintiffs have not identified their
states of incorporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“[A] corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
4
Because Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court’s September 12th Order, the
Court is limited to considering only the Complaint in determining whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., No. 11-15292, 2013
WL 4406389, at *2–3 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). The Complaint does not show
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and this action is thus required to be
dismissed. See King, 505 F.3d at 1171 (quoting Slaughter, 359 F.2d at 956).3
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of November, 2013.
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business . . . .” (emphasis added)).
3
Even if the Court were to excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the September
12th Order, the Court cannot enter the parties’ purported “Consent Judgment”
because, absent subject matter jurisdiction, such a judgment would be a nullity.
See, e.g., Whitt v. Sherman Int’l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998).
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?