United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court sua sponte. “A federal court
not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to
inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that
jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v.
Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.
1985); Hallandale Prof'l Fire Fighters Local 2238 v.
City of Hallandale, 922 F.2d 756, 759 (11th Cir. 1991)
(stating “every federal court operates under an
independent obligation to ensure it is presented with the
kind of concrete controversy upon which its constitutional
grant of authority is based”).
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Taylor
v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). And
“because a federal court is powerless to act beyond its
statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must
zealously [e]nsure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and
should itself raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE
Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
well settled that “for federal diversity jurisdiction
to attach, all parties must be completely diverse and the
amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000.”
Underwriters at Lloyd's London v.
Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010).
Here, the Complaint alleges this is an action for damages
“to be in excess of $75, 000.00 exclusive of costs and
interest.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 2). However, the
parties' citizenship is not clear based on the Complaint.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant, Hillsborough LLC, is a
limited liability company formed under the laws of Florida
with its principal place of business in Hillsborough County,
Florida. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 4). However, the Complaint fails
to provide information about Hillsborough LLC necessary for
the Court to determine whether the requirements of complete
diversity have been satisfied. A limited liability company is
a business entity which can be comprised of multiple members
or partners. In order for a complaint “to sufficiently
allege the citizenships of . . . unincorporated business
entities, a party must list the citizenships of all the
members of the limited liability company.” See
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374
F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Without knowing the
citizenship of the individual members, the Court is unable to
determine whether the requirements of complete diversity have
the Complaint fails to properly state the citizenship of the
individual Defendants: David Davidson, Deborah Denton
Stearns, and Danny Stearns. The Complaint states that these
Defendant are “residents” of Hillsborough County,
Florida, rather than indicating that they are citizens of
Florida. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 5-7). As explained in
Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. V. Lama, 63 F.3d
1330, 1342 n.12 (11th Cir. 2011), a complaint must allege
citizenship, not residence, to establish diversity for a
the Court directs Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint
alleging the identity and citizenship of every member of
Hillsborough, LLC and properly alleging the citizenship of
each individual Defendant by June 21, 2018. Failure to do so
will result in the entry of an Order dismissing this case for
lack of jurisdiction. See Travaglio v. Am. Express
Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013)(“When a
plaintiff files suit in federal court, she must allege facts
that, if true, show federal subject matter jurisdiction over
her case exists. Those allegations, when federal jurisdiction
is invoked based on diversity, must include the citizenship
of each party, so that the court is satisfied that no
plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant . .
. . Without such allegations, district courts are
constitutionally obligated to dismiss the action altogether
if the plaintiff does not cure the deficiency.”).
ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
is directed to file an Amended Complaint containing
appropriate jurisdictional allegations, consistent with the
foregoing, by June 21, 2018. Failure to do
so will result in the entry of an Order dismissing this case
for lack of jurisdiction.
and ORDERED in Chambers ...