Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company et al v. G.L.L. et al

Filing 49

ORDER directing that Plaintiffs shall file, on or before May 15, 2017, an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of Defendants Douglas Jumper III and J&J Realty LLC. Failure to file the amended complaint required by this Order will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/2/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE
AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY and THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:17-cv-131-WSD

TERRI LEE BROWN, DOUGLAS
JUMPER, S.R., ARTHUR
DOUGLAS JUMPER, JR.,
DOUGLAS JUMPER, III, LINDA
MCCREARY, MICHAEL
MCCREARY, DISTINCTIVE
HOMES, INC., and J&J REALTY,
LLC,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
On February 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Hartford Life Insurance and Annuity
Insurance Company and The Prudential Insurance Company of America
(“Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Complaint in Interpleader [1] (“First
Amended Complaint”).
The First Amended Complaint asserts that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 10). 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).
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)).

2

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not adequately allege diversity
jurisdiction because it fails to identify the citizenship of Defendant J&J Realty
LLC. The First Amended Complaint asserts that “J&J Realty, LLC is a Limited
Liability Company organized under the laws of the State of Mississippi, with its
principal place of business in Mississippi.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 9). This is
insufficient because a limited liability company (“LLC”) 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 [an LLC], a party must list the citizenships of all the members of
the limited liability company.” Id.
Plaintiffs also fail to allege the citizenship of Defendant Douglas Jumper III.
For United States citizens, “[c]itizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction,” and “domicile requires both residence in a state and ‘an
intention to remain there indefinitely.’” Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d
1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254,
1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiffs are required to file an amended complaint properly alleging the
citizenship of Defendants Douglas Jumper III and J&J Realty LLC. Plaintiffs may,

3

in their amended complaint, “add newly-identified defendants Don Carrier and
Michael Kennedy as well as . . . add 28 U.S.C. § 1335 as an additional basis for
subject matter jurisdiction.” ([27] at 2).1 Unless Plaintiffs file the amended
complaint required by this Order, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1268-69 (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 Plaintiffs shall file, on or before
May 15, 2017, an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of
Defendants Douglas Jumper III and J&J Realty LLC. Plaintiffs may, in their
amended complaint, “add newly-identified defendants Don Carrier and Michael
Kennedy as well as . . . add 28 U.S.C. § 1335 as an additional basis for subject
matter jurisdiction.” ([27] at 2). Failure to file the amended complaint required by
this Order will result in dismissal of this action.

1

On April 5, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to add this information to their
complaint. ([27]). Defendant Terry Lee Brown consented to Plaintiffs’ motion,
and the remaining Defendants did not file a response. ([31]); see LR 7.1(B),
NDGa (“Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the
motion”).
4

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2017.

5