The Heritage Bank v. Quinnco Hinesville, LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER dismissing as moot re 18 Motion for Default Judgment, Vacating re 16 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 1/20/2016. (loh)

HLED
U.S. fl!STFICT COURT
I-'

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

THE HERITAGE BANK,

....j .

2a16 JAN 2O PM 2:11
CLERKiZ
So. 490F GA.

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV414-268

V.
QUINNCO HINESVILLE, LLC; CHARLES
W. COKER, JR.; and MICHAEL F. P.
MALONEY;
Defendants.
ORDER

Plaintiff Heritage Bank has filed an amended complaint in this
Court seeking damages and attorney's fees based on Defendants'
alleged failure to pay the amounts due under certain loans. (Doc.
12.) Once again, however, the jurisdictional allegations contained
in the amended complaint are insufficient to establish complete
diversity between the parties. The party invoking this Court's
diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of adequately pleading
complete diversity. 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.
1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent
all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
October 1, 1981.

Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.,

374 F.3d

1020, 1021-22 (11th Cir. 2004) . The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals has been explicit in addressing the proper method to allege
sufficiently the citizenship of a

LLC:

"a party must list the

citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company."
Id. at 1022.
In this case, the First Amended Complaint notes that the
members of Defendant Quinnco Hinesville, LLC are Quinnco Companies,
LLC

and Quinnco Employees,

LLC.

(Doc. 12 at 1.) However, the

amended complaint does not include a list of the individual
members, along with their citizenships, of Quinnco Companies,
and Quinnco Employees,
Companies,

LLC

LLC.

LLC

The notice merely states that Quinnco

and Quinnco Employees,

LLC

are South Carolina

limited liability companies with their citizenship in South
Carolina. (Id.)
However, the general allegation that Defendant Quinnco
Hinesville, LLC's member LLCs are citizens of South Carolina is not
enough. See Ray, 519 F.2d at 1082, see also RES-GA Creekside Manor,
LLC v.

Star Home Builders, Inc., 2011 WL 6019904, at *2 (N.D. Ga.

Dec. 2, 2011) (reviewing citizenship of each member LLC). Thus, to
properly plead diversity Plaintiff must provide the citizenship of
any member

LLC's

by providing a list of their members and

citizenships. Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended
complaint within fourteen days

from the date of this order. As

noted above and in previous orders of this Court, the amended
complaint must properly allege diversity in this case by including

2

the names and citizenships of each member of Defendant LLCs, thus
allowing the Court to confirm that it possesses jurisdiction to
entertain this case.
The Court fails to understand why Plaintiff's attorney cannot
comprehend its directives, or the plain requirements for pleading
diversity when a LLC is a party. Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 102122. The Court also questions the value of obtaining a default
judgment against one party without obtaining the dismissal of the
other parties in this case. See Drill S., Inc. v. Inttl Fid. Ins.
Co., 234 F.3d 1232, 1237 n.8 (11th Cir. 2000) ("(W)here multiple
defendants are jointly liable, it would be 'incongruous' for
judgment to be entered against a defaulting defendant prior to the
decision on the merits as to the remaining defendants." (citing
Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872))). Plaintiff's lawyers
are creating unnecessary busy work for this Court and should,
instead, just do it right. Further failure by Plaintiff will result
in a dismissal of this case by this Court. Accordingly, because
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint, the Clerk's Entry of
Default (Doc. 16) is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment (Doc. 18) is likewise DISMISSED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this

iay of January 2016.

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

3