Oliver v. Fitness International, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:22-cv-12620-NGE-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.248 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHANIA OLIVER,
Plaintiff,

No. 22-12620

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Shania Oliver filed a complaint against Defendant Fitness International,
LLC, alleging violations of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Michigan’s
Whistleblower Protection Act, in this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)
For the reasons below, the Court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon its initial review of the complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had not
properly alleged the citizenship of Defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Thus, the Court issued
an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) More specifically, the Court
noted that because “‘a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its
members,’” it needed to know the citizenship of each member and sub-member of
Defendant. (Id. at PageID.37 (quoting Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d
1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009).)) Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order, setting forth the
citizenship of each of Defendant’s members, including “a newly disclosed” member that
is a limited liability company with two members—both of which are limited partnerships
1 

Case 2:22-cv-12620-NGE-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.249 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

that have partner(s) who are citizens of Michigan, like Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) Despite
this, Plaintiff asked the Court not to dismiss this case, pointing to Defendant’s admission
in its answer that all members of Defendant are citizens of states other than the state of
Michigan and stating that it is unclear when that entity became a member of Defendant.
(Id.) The Court found that Plaintiff had not satisfied her burden of proving that the parties
were diverse at the time the complaint was filed but issued a second order to show
cause, giving Plaintiff another opportunity to show jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15.) After
issuance of this order, Defendant amended its answer to deny the allegation it had
previously admitted regarding its citizenship.1 (ECF No. 17.) Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s second order, stating that Defendant had not provided
her with the date the non-diverse entity became a member of Defendant and that this
information is within Defendant’s custody. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant subsequently filed
its own response, stating that while it is not seeking dismissal of this case for lack of
jurisdiction and would otherwise prefer to have this matter adjudicated in this Court, the
non-diverse entity was a member of Defendant prior to the filing of this lawsuit, as it had
relayed to Plaintiff in an email sent to her counsel before she filed her most recent
response.2 (ECF No. 19.)

1

A stipulated order was entered allowing Defendant to amend its answer. (ECF
No. 16.) This order states that Defendant’s original admission “was based upon
incorrect information.”
2
It is unclear whether Plaintiff received this email, which has not been submitted
to the Court as an exhibit. Defendant does not explain why it waited until January 12,
2023, to amend its answer and deny the allegation regarding its citizenship, despite
being admittedly aware of the underlying information by at least December 14, 2022—
the date it was provided to Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 14-4, 14-5.)
2 

Case 2:22-cv-12620-NGE-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.250 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3

Because there were Michigan citizens on both sides of the dispute at the outset
of this case, the parties are not diverse and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is
appropriate. This conclusion is not altered by the parties’ desire to litigate in federal
court. See Alongi v. Ford Motor Co., 386 F.3d 716, 728 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Subject-matter
jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, nor can it be waived.”)
(citation omitted); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have
an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
when no party challenges it.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: January 19, 2023
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on January 19, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

3