Rabin et al v. Garwood et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants file their Supplement to Removal on or before December 17, 2015, that provides the information required by this Order. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/2/2015. (anc)
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). In this case
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [1.1] 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 Notice of Removal does not adequately allege Roane’s citizenship. The
Notice of Removal states that Roane is “a foreign corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Tennessee, maintaining its principal office and principal
place of doing business in Rockwood, Tennessee . . . .” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4).
Roane Transportation Services, LLC’s name plainly shows that it is not a
2
corporation but a limited liability company. 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 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 Court requires further information regarding Roane’s members and their
citizenship to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter.
Accordingly, Defendants are required to file a supplement to their Notice of
Removal identifying each of Roane’s members and each member’s citizenship.1
The Court notes that it is required to dismiss this action, unless Defendants provide
the required supplement alleging sufficient facts to show the Court’s jurisdiction or
submits evidence establishing 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).
1
“[W]hen an entity is composed of multiple layers of constituent entities, the
citizenship determination requires an exploration of the citizenship of the
constituent entities as far down as necessary to unravel fully the citizenship of the
entity before the court.” RES-GA Creekside Manor, LLC v. Star Home Builders,
Inc., No. 10-cv-207, 2011 WL 6019904, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2011) (quoting
Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venture, LLC v. CRM Ventures, LLC, No.
10-cv-02001, 2010 WL 3632359, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2010)).
3
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants file their “Supplement to
Removal” on or before December 17, 2015, that provides the information required
by this Order.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 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?