Great American Insurance Group v. Roswell Drywall, LLC et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff file an amended complaint, on or before February 27, 2015, that provides the information required by this Order. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/12/2015. (anc)
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). In this case
Plaintiff’s Complaint raises only questions of state law and the Court only could
have diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
“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, unlike a corporation, is a citizen of any state of which
one of its members is a citizen, not of the state where the company was formed or
2
has it principal office. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings
L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004).
The Complaint does not adequately allege Plaintiff’s citizenship. Plaintiff
alleges only that it is an “Ohio corporation.” (Complaint ¶ 1). This allegation is
not sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because a corporation is a citizen of
its state of incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of
business. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d
1020, 1021 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). The Complaint
does not state Plaintiff’s state of incorporation and the state in which it maintains
its principal place of business.1
The Complaint does not adequately allege the citizenship of Roswell.
Plaintiff alleges only that Roswell “is a Georgia limited liability corporation” and
that the “members of Roswell Drywall reside in and are domiciled in Georgia.”
(Complaint ¶ 2). This allegation is insufficient. Plaintiff is required to allege the
identity of each of Roswell’s members and their respective citizenship in order for
the Court to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Rolling Greens,
374 F.3d at 1022.
1
The Court cannot determine whether the allegation that Plaintiff is “an Ohio
corporation” refers to Plaintiff’s state of incorporation, its principal place of
business, or both.
3
The Court requires further information regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship and
Roswell’s members’ citizenships. Accordingly, Plaintiff is required to file an
amended complaint stating its state of incorporation and the state in which it
maintains its principal place of business, and the identities of Roswell’s members
and their respective citizenships. The Court notes that it is required to dismiss this
action, unless Plaintiff provides the required supplement alleging sufficient facts to
show the Court’s jurisdiction. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the district court must dismiss an action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the pleadings or record evidence
establishes jurisdiction).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff file an amended complaint, on or
before February 27, 2015, that provides the information required by this Order
SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?