Looking Good Properties LLC et al v. Johnson & Johnson Incorporated

Filing 68

ORDERED that defendant Ascot is directed to file an Amended Notice of Removal within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 2/26/2014. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

LOOKIN GOOD PROPERTIES, LLC
and BARBARA KRINSKY,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. CV412-138
ASCOT CORPORATE NAMES
LIMITED, an Underwriter of
Lloyd's London, subscribing
to Policy ASC1000121

)
)
)

:

)

1
r\)

Defendant.

__
ORDER

JJ
J

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Ascot Corporate Names Limited, an Underwriter at
Lloyd's London subscribing to Policy ASC1000121 ("Ascot").
(Doc. 45.) Before ruling on this motion, however, the Court
must establish whether it has jurisdiction over the parties.
Former Defendant Johnson & Johnson, Inc. ("J&J") removed this
action from the Superior Court of Chatham County. (Doc. 1.)
Defendant J&J based its removal on this Court's diversity
jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 6.) However, the Notice of Removal is
insufficient to establish complete diversity between the
parties. On June 14, 2013, Defendant J&J was terminated as a
defendant in this case. (Doc. 47.) Accordingly, as the only
remaining defendant, Defendant Ascot stands as the party
invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction.

The party invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction
bears the burden of adequately pleading complete diversity
between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Ray v. Bird & Son &
Asset Realization Co., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975)' ("The
burden of pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party
invoking federal jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction is properly
challenged, that party also bears the burden of proof."). For
the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability
company ("LLC") is a citizen of every state in which any of its
members are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH
Holdings L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th dr. 2004). The
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has been explicit in
addressing the proper method to allege sufficiently the
citizenship of an LLC: "a party must list the citizenships of
all the members of the limited liability company." Id. at 1022.
In this case, the Notice of Removal does not include a list
of the individual members, along with their citizenship, of
Plaintiff Lookin Good Properties, LLC ("Lookin Good"). Rather,
the notice simply advances the general and factually unsupported
conclusion that complete diversity exists between the parties

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding
2

because Plaintiff Barbara Krinsky is a resident of Fulton
County, Georgia, Plaintiff Lookin Good is a Georgia limited
liability company, and Defendant is a South Carolina corporation
with its principal place of business in South Carolina. (Doc. 1

¶J 1-2.) Such a general allegation, however, is insufficient
for the party invoking the Court's jurisdiction to carry its
burden of establishing complete diversity between the parties.
See Ray, 519 F.2d at 1082.
Accordingly, Defendant Ascot is DIRECTED to file an Amended
Notice of Removal within fourteen days from the date of this
order. The amended notice should properly include the
citizenship of each party to this case, specifically the names
and citizenships of each member of Lookin Good Properties, LLC.
SO ORDERED this

'.'

day of February 2014.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down
prior to October 1, 1981.
3