United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
KATHRYN T. CRAIG and KOR ISLAND PROVISIONS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
ROMAN KROPP, SHERRI KROPP and DYLAN KROPP, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review
of Defendants' Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) and
supplemental materials (Doc. 4, Doc. 5). Subject-matter
jurisdiction is premised on the presence of diversity of
citizenship between the parties. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are obligated
to inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it
may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of
S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.
1999) (citations omitted). A defendant may remove a civil
case from state court provided the case could have been
brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction if the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and there is complete diversity of citizenship
among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison
v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir.
2000). The defendant seeking removal bears the burden of
establishing diversity jurisdiction as of the date of the
removal. See Moreland v. SunTrust Bank, No.
2:13-cv-242, 2013 WL 3716400, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2013)
(citing Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608
F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010)); Sammie Bonner Constr.
Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308, 1310
(11th Cir. 2003)). Removal jurisdiction raises significant
federalism concerns, and thus courts strictly construe
removal statutes. See Burns v. Windsor Ins.
Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Any doubt as
to the presence of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor
of remand. See Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance
Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001).
the Court is satisfied that the amount in controversy is met.
With regard to citizenship, Defendants do not identify the
citizenship of the individual members of Kor Island
Provisions, LLC, and a limited liability company is a citizen
of any state of which a member is a citizen. Thermoset
Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, __ F.3d
__, 2017 WL 816224, *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (citing
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings
L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the
pleadings are required to provide the citizenship of each LLC
member to invoke the District Court's diversity
jurisdiction)). Furthermore, Defendants rely on the
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint when they state that
Plaintiffs Kathryn T. Craig and Kor Island Provisions,
are citizens of Florida. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). But as the
Eleventh Circuit has recently noted, removing parties should
not rely on beliefs of opposing parties to meet the burden to
establish diversity jurisdiction, nor should the Court accept
such representations without further investigation.
See Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands,
Inc., __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 1046103, at *6 (11th Cir. Mar.
20, 2017). Therefore, the Court finds that the citizenship of
Kor Island Provisions, LLC and Kathryn T. Craig are not yet
properly alleged as Defendants are relying on the
representation in the Complaint.
Defendants submitted Affidavits of Sherri and Dylan Kropp in
support of removal, which aver that they are currently
citizens of Colorado, but resided in Florida prior to that
time. The Court accepts the representations as to Sherri and
Dylan Kropp's citizenship at this time but notes that no
such information has been provided for Defendant Roman Kropp,
and the Notice of Removal summarily states that he is a
citizen of Colorado. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). An individual is a
citizen where he is domiciled, not necessarily where he is a
resident. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293
F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) ("Citizenship is
equivalent to 'domicile' for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction."). Domicile is the
place of an individual's true, fixed, and permanent home
and to which he intends to return whenever he is absent
therefrom. See Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (citations
omitted). A domicile is not synonymous with a residence, and
it is possible for someone to reside in one place but be
domiciled in another. See id.
Court will allow Defendants to supplement the Notice of
Removal to cure the deficiencies identified above, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, it is now
shall have up to and including April 21, 2017 to supplement
the Notice of Removal to establish this Court's diversity
jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in this matter
being remanded without further notice DONE and ORDERED in
Fort Myers, Florida this 5th day of April, 2017.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other
site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
 Notably, Plaintiff's Complaint
only states that Kathryn T. Craig is a resident of Lee
County, Florida, but domicile is required to establish
citizenship for diversity purposes. (Doc. 2, ¶
 Plaintiff's Complaint states that
Plaintiff Kathryn T. Craig is the sole owner and manager of
Kor Island Provisions, LLC (Doc. 2, ¶ 1), but it does
not indicate if as an owner and manager she is also a member
of the ...