Exodus Vision, LLC v. Touchmark National Bank

Filing 4

ORDER. Plaintiff shall file, on or before June 30, 2016, an amended complaint properly alleging Plaintiff's citizenship. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/13/2016. (bgt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
EXODUS VISION, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:16-cv-1795-WSD

TOUCHMARK NATIONAL BANK,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff Exodus Vision, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its
Complaint [1] against Defendant Touchmark National Bank (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 4). 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). In this

case, the 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 (“LLC”), 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). “To
sufficiently allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a party
must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.” Id.

2

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not adequately allege the citizenship of Plaintiff
Exodus Vision, LLC, because it fails to identify the members of the LLC and the
citizenship of each member. See id. The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is a
Nevada limited liability company,” which is insufficient. (Compl. ¶ 1).
Plaintiff is required to file an amended complaint properly alleging
Plaintiff’s citizenship. Unless Plaintiff does so, the Court must dismiss this action
for lack of subject matter 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).
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file, on or before
June 30, 2016, an amended complaint properly alleging Plaintiff’s citizenship.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2016.

3