United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
SHERIPOLSTERCHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on review of Defendant's
Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed on June 2, 2017.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on the presence of a
diversity of citizenship between the parties. (Id.
at ¶ 1).
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. See28 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.
regard to citizenship, Defendant does not identify the
citizenship of the individual members of the limited
liability company, and a limited liability company is a
citizen of any state of which a member is a citizen. See
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)). Each member of the LLC must be diverse from
the plaintiff. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546
U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Here, Defendant alleges that Bob Evans
Farms, LLC is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Ohio, but fails to allege where its members are
domiciled. (Doc. 1, ¶ 2). Therefore, the Court cannot
determine the citizenship of Defendant, or that diversity of
jurisdiction is present.
Court further notes an additional issue with the Notice of
Removal, wherein it states, “upon information and
belief, Plaintiff is a resident of Naples, Florida.”
(Doc. 1, ¶ 1). However, domicile is required, not
residency. 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.
will be afforded an opportunity to supplement its Notice of
Removal, as directed by 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
it is now
shall supplement the Notice of Removal in accordance with the
above on or before June 12, 2017, or otherwise show cause by
this date why this case should not be remanded for failure to
establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on the presence
of diversity jurisdiction at the time of removal. Failure to
comply with this Order will result in this case being
remanded without further notice.
 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 ...