Blocker Farms of Florida, Inc. v. Bell et al

Filing 53

ORDER directing the Clerk to transmit these cases, along with these findings, to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/19/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA,

INC.

Plaintiff,

*

*
*

*

BUURMA PROPERTIES,

LLC,

Defendant.

*

BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA,

INC.

Plaintiff,

*

v.

KEN 0.

CV 613-068

*

BELL and ROBIN R.

BELL,

CV 613-067

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

On January 6,

Farms of Fla.,

Inc.

2015,

v.

the Court of Appeals

Buurma Props.,

LLC,

remanded both Blocker

6:13-cv-<6Qr1 and Blocker

Farms of Fla., Inc. v. Bell, 6:13-cv-67,2 for the Court "to determine
if diversity existed at the time th[e] action[s] w[ere] filed."
Doc.

52;

Buurma Doc.

52.)

Farms of Florida,

Inc.

documenting

parties'

determining

the

particularly difficult,

This Court then ordered Plaintiff Blocker

("Blocker Farms'')

the citizenship

as

more at clouding the truth,

(Bell

to submit further information

citizenship.

(Buurma

of the parties in this

Blocker Farms'

Doc.

rather than uncovering it.

2 The Court will cite to case number 6:13-cv-67 as "Bell."

But

case has proved

submissions

1 The Court will cite to case number 6:13-cv-68 as "Buurma.'

53.)

seemed

aimed

Nonetheless,

the most recent submission to the Court on the matter reveals not only
that Blocker Farms has

found itself mired in "a quicksand of deceit,"

William Shakespeare, The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth,

act.

also

Court

finally provides

adequate

information for the

5,

sc.

to

4, but

make

its

jurisdictional determination.

I.

A.

JURISDICTIONAL

FINDINGS

The Bells

Leading off with the most straightforward determination, both Ken
0. Bell and Robin R. Bell are Georgia citizens.
in

Blocker

Farms'

Complaint

(Bell

Bells' answer (Bell Doc. 6 at 3) .3
means

of

Cibao,

establishing

C.

por A

v.

diversity

Lama,

633

Doc.

1)

This much is alleged

and

is

admitted

in

the

Such an allegation is a sufficient

jurisdiction,

F.3d 1330,

1342

see
n.12

Molinos

Valle

(11th Cir.

Del

2011),

and the Bells have not challenged the Court's jurisdiction.4

B.

Buurma Properties,

LLC

The Court now turns to Buurma Properties, LLC ("Buurma").

is a Georgia limited liability company.

Buurma

(Buurma Doc. 54-4 at 4.)

For

3
The Bells do not specifically admit that they are Georgia citizens.
Rather, in admitting that venue is proper in the Southern District of
Georgia, they failed to deny the jurisdictional facts alleged in Blocker
Farms' Complaint.
Therefore, the Court deems those facts admitted.
See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8 (b) (6) .

4
Though "subject matter jurisdiction cannot be .
conferred on a
court by consent of the parties," Eagerton v. Valuations, Inc., 698 F.2d
1115, 1118 (11th Cir. 1983), parties may admit to facts bearing on the
Court's jurisdiction and the Court may rely on those admissions in making its
jurisdictional determination.
Cf. Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of S. Fla. Inc. v.
Metro. Dade Cnty., 122 F.3d 895, 905 (11th Cir. 1997) ("[P]arties may not

stipulate to jurisdiction, but they may stipulate to facts that bear on [the
Court's] jurisdictional inquiry.
When the record contains such stipulations,
[the Court]

look[s]

to the record to determine

whether the stipulated facts

give rise to jurisdiction." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
2

purposes of determining diversity of citizenship "a limited liability
company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is
a citizen."
374

Rolling Greens MHP,

F.3d 1020,

1022

(11th Cir.

L.P.

v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.,

2004).

Thus,

Blocker

Farms

adequately allege Buurma's citizenship in its Complaint.
1 at

1

(alleging only that

Buurma

"is

the laws of the State of Georgia").)

1022

a

(Buurma Doc.

corporation organized under

See Rolling Greens,

("To sufficiently allege the citizenships of

company],

failed to

374 F.3d at

[a limited liability

a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the

limited liability company.

In response to

. . .").

the Court's

inquiry,

Blocker Farms

submitted the

following list of members:

•

Richard C. Buurma,
Michigan citizens;

•

Loren
Buurma,
Nathan
Buurma,
Bruce
Buurma,
Michael
Buurma, Aaron Buurma, Bryan Buurma, Chadd Buurma, Henry
Buurma, and Daniel Buurma, all Ohio citizens.

(Buurma Doc.

54-4 at

2.)

the company's members
(Buurma

Doc.

56

at

Gregory Buurma,

and Ryan Buurma,

Buurma confirmed that this list represented

as of the date Blocker Farms

2-3;

all

Buurma

Doc.

56-4

at

2-3.)

filed this
Thus,

suit.

the

Court

finds that Buurma was a citizen of both Michigan and Ohio on the date
Blocker Farms

C.

filed this

suit.

Blocker Farms of Florida,

Inc.

The Court finally turns to what has proven to be the most enigmatic

entity,

Blocker

Farms.

For starters,

Blocker Farms is not,

Complaint alleges and the caption indicates,
Rather,

a Florida corporation.

Blocker Farms is a Florida limited liability company.
3

as the

(Buurma

Doc.
of
374

54-1 at 2.)

all

the

Thus,

members

F.3d at

1022,

because parties must allege "the citizenships

of"

limited

liability

Blocker Farms'

citizenship in its Complaint

companies,

Rolling

Greens,

conclusory allegation of its Florida

(Buurma Doc.

1 at 1) was insufficient for

purposes of determining diversity of citizenship.

In

response

regarding

the

to

the

Blocker

Court's

Farms'

first

membership,

request

information

Farms

Blocker

for

represented

that Blocker Farms had only two members as of the date it
suit,

the

Farming
2.)

first

Enterprises,

Blocker

member,

2010,

being

Farms

LLC

Blocker

("Blocker

and

the

second

Farming").

William M.

Blocker,

Jr.

Blocker,

After that date,

(Id.)

Jr.,

however,

54-2

at

so

(Id. at

until August 21,

2;

Buurma Doc.

56

Blocker Farms lost the scent on the

trail of Blocker Farming's legal status.
search," Blocker Farms'

Doc.

Blocker

Farming had only one

This was

died.

being

(Buurma

later confirmed that Blocker

when William M.

at 1.)

Cale

filed this

counsel was

Despite an alleged "diligent

"unable to determine the

precise

legal status of an LLC in the State of Georgia following the death of

its only member,"
("Estate")
Not

but

assumed that

William M.

Blocker,

was Blocker Farming's sole member.

Jr.'s

(Buurma Doc.

Estate

56 at 2.)

so.

[I]f
dies

the

last

member

. . . the

of

administrator . . . shall

liability

a

company,

become
not

written

the

given

to

within 90 days of such death.
O.C.G.A.

§

14-11-506.

liability

company

executor

a

unless

administrator . . . elects

notice

limited

member's

member

such
to

of

limited

executor

become

limited

[or]

the

a

[or]

member

liability

by

company

Thus,

upon

administrator
(See

Buurma

William

of

the

Doc.

M.

Blocker,

Estate

54-2

at

Jr.'s

became

2,

8.)

death,

Blocker
Blocker

Cale

Farming's
Farms

has

Blocker,

sole

the

member.

pointed

to

no

provision of Blocker Farming's articles of organization that provides
otherwise
written

and

there

notice

Farming

of

within

Accordingly,
members:

on

is

his

90

no

election

days

the

indication

of

date

not

to

Cale

become

William

Blocker

Blocker Farming,

that

M.

Farms

a

Blocker
member

this

with Cale Blocker as

of

Blocker

Jr.'s

Blocker,

filed

death.

suit

its

provided

it

had

two

sole member;

and

Cale Blocker in his individual capacity.

Paring the Blocker Farms puzzle down this far,

put

an

Cale

end

to

Blocker's

immediately

Court's

the

Court's

citizenship,

apparent,

domicile.

too,

Blocker

jurisdictional

Blocker's

jurisdictional

quest

As

has

revealed

noted in

an

consistently represented that Cale
of

Florida.

(Buurma

Doc.

57.)

inquiry.

proved

Farms'

however,

This

elusive.

does not

is

because

Though

not

submissions

throughout

the

inconsistencies

regarding

Cale

earlier

order,

Blocker

Farms

has

Blocker is a resident and citizen
But

documentation

provided

to

the

Court also indicated that Cale Blocker potentially resided in Georgia.
(Buurma

Doc.

56-2

at

3.)

Court asked Blocker Farms

And,

in

light

of

this

inconsistency,

the

to provide further information to establish

what Cale Blocker's domicile was on the date it filed this action.

In response, Blocker Farms represented that Cale Blocker lived in
Florida,

where

through 2002.
Doc.

19-3).)

he

ran

a

large-scale

(Buurma Doc.
Blocker

Farms

58 at 2

farming

operation,

from

(citing C. Blocker Dep.,

1999

Buurma

alleged that Cale Blocker moved back to

Georgia only to help his
poor

health.

story

goes,

(Id.)
Cale

father,

After

Blocker

William M. Blocker,

William M.

was

able

Blocker,

to

go

back

Jr.,

Jr.'s
to

who was

death,

Florida

so

to

in
the

start

farming and, "[i]ntending to establish permanent residence in Florida,
he

obtained

confirms

(Id.)

a

his

Florida

address

Finally,

returns,
Road,

driver's

as

truth

of

regarding

however,

whole

citizenship.

purported

But

it

was

Blocker Dep.

apartment

Georgia.

to

The

the

address

Court,

Labelle,

address,

makes

at

that

which

Florida."

is

address

on

impliedly

the

Florida

represented

appearance

in

6010 State Road 29

not

a

the

residential

Cale

deposition

South,
address

Labelle,
at

all.

6.)

Indeed,

Cale Blocker has never had a house or an

Cale

Blocker's

(Id. at 33.)

as many as

148

that

he

primary

has

lived

residence

His wife lives there and,

nights

a year

second

as

of

Florida

Farms'

the

driver's

address

in

Blocker

aside,

counsel helpfully points out

listed

no

inconsistencies

the

anywhere
because

address

Facial

Florida

and

The closest address is

Florida.

spends

story.

residential

testimony.

is

2012,

has proved merely a fig leaf covering

Blocker's

Blocker's

provided

Blocker's

This

of

(Id.)

Cale

Cale

the

Rather,

fall

State Road South 29,

deposition testimony that Blocker Farms'

license

the

Cale Blocker responded that he would list 3900 Champion Ring

Fort Meyers.

tells

in

when asked what primary address he would list on tax

This explanation,
the

6118

license

in.
is

office.

(Id.
in

at

(C.

34.)

Glennville,

though Cale Blocker

in a Florida hotel,

he does

so

only for periods of four or five days at a time before returning home
to Georgia.

(Id. at 34.)
6

Thus,

despite

Blocker

Farms's

consistent

misrepresentations

the contrary, Cale Blocker is not a Florida citizen.

to

Though he claims

his principal residence is a hotel in Florida, he stays in that hotel
only for relatively brief intervals and always returns to his home in

Georgia.

"A person's

permanent

home

domicile

and principal

intention

of

returning

McCormick

v.

Aderholt,

(quoting Mas v. Perry,
added)

(internal

is the place of his

true,

fixed,

and

to

which

he has

the

establishment,

whenever

293

he

F.3d

is

quotation

absent

1254,

489 F.2d 1396,
marks

and

1257-58

1399
and

therefrom

(11th

(5th Cir.
citation

.

.

Cir.

1974))

.

."

2002)

(emphasis

omitted).

Cale

Blocker's deposition testimony makes clear that he is a citizen of the
state of Georgia,
from the

state

Accordingly,

members:
had

for business

on

the

in

date

Florida.

Blocker

Farms

filed

Blocker Farming and Cale Blocker.

only

members

the state he always intends to return to when absent

one

were

member,

Georgia

Cale

Blocker.

citizens

and,

suit,

it

Blocker Farming,

Thus,

both

therefore,

of

had

in turn,

Blocker

Blocker

two

Farms

Farms'

was

a

Georgia citizen for purposes of diversity.

II.

According to

the

findings

CONCLUSION

set

forth above,

the

Court

concludes

that diversity of citizenship did not exist on the date Blocker Farms
filed

suit

in

Blocker

Farms

of

Florida,

Inc.

v.

Bell,

6:13-cv-67,

because both Blocker Farms and the Bells were Georgia citizens on that

date.

Diversity

Blocker

Farms

of

filed

citizenship,

suit

in

Blocker

however,
Farms

of

did

exist

Florida,

on
Inc.

the
v.

date
Buurma

Properties,

LLC,

citizen

that

on

Michigan

cases,

on

that

6:13-cv-68,
date

date.

and

because

Buurma

The

was

Clerk

along with these findings,

Blocker
a

is

Farms

was

a

Georgia

citizen

of

both

Ohio

DIRECTED

to

transmit

to the Court of Appeals for

and

these

further

proceedings.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,

Georg ia,

this

//<day

HONOI^BLe^J.
UNITED STATES

of May,

2015.

RANDAL HALL
DISTRICT

JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA