United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
MATTHEW C RINGSMUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff,
REPP SPORTS LLC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Matthew C. Ringsmuth's Complaint
(Doc. 1) on sua sponte review. Ringsmuth brings this
class action suit against Defendant Repp Sports, LLC for
unfair marketing, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment
over the nutritional content of Repp Sports' RAZE branded
federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking” and should do so “at the earliest
possible stage in the proceedings.” Univ. of S.
Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.
1999). The plaintiff bears the burden of adequately pleading
jurisdiction in actions filed directly in federal court.
King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1171
(11th Cir. 2007). Ringsmuth pleads diversity under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) as the basis for this Court's
subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFA gives federal district
courts original jurisdiction over class action cases as long
as three conditions are met: (1) the proposed class has at
least 100 members; (2) at least one plaintiff is diverse from
any defendant (minimal diversity); and (3) the amount in
controversy exceeds $5, 000, 000, exclusive of interests and
costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Ringsmuth's allegations
of minimal diversity and amount in controversy fall short.
with diversity, Ringsmuth pleads that he is a Florida citizen
but fails to adequately plead Repp Sports' citizenship.
Instead, Ringsmuth alleges that Repp Sports is a Florida LLC
with a principal place of business in Longwood, Florida.
(Doc. 1 at 5). But an LLC is a citizen in every state where
one of its members is a citizen. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P.
v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022
(11th Cir. 2004). Ringsmuth has not provided any information
about where Repp Sports' members are domiciled, so the
Court cannot determine whether the parties are minimally
diverse. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254,
1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating that citizenship is
determined by domicile, not necessarily residence). Nor does
Ringsmuth adequately allege the citizenship of the unnamed
class members. The citizenship of unnamed potential class
members can get a complaint over the diversity hump.
Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1194 n.24
(11th Cir. 2007) (stating that “only one member of the
plaintiff class - named or unnamed - must be diverse from any
one defendant") (superseded by statute on other
grounds). But Ringsmuth does not allege that any of the
potential plaintiffs in this case are citizens of a diverse
state. And Ringsmuth limits his allegations to Florida,
stating that RAZE is sold across Lee County and in thousands
of Florida locations. (Doc. 1 at 3). In fact, besides
proposing a “Nationwide Class, ” the only
reference Ringsmuth makes to any event or person outside of
Florida is in Count V, when he alleges that Repp Sports'
practices are detrimental to “consumers across the
country.” (Doc. 1 at 19). Ringsmuth thus fails to plead
minimal diversity of citizenship. Ringsmuth will have an
opportunity to correct these deficiencies through
also fails to adequately plead the amount in controversy.
“A plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy
requirement by claiming a sufficient sum in good
faith.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors,
LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, the sole
allegation on amount in controversy is that “the total
claims…are well in excess of $5, 000, 000 in the
aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs”-parroting
the language of the statute. (Doc. 1 at 3-4); §
1332(d)(2). Ringsmith provides no insight as to how he
arrives at five million dollars. All he tells the Court is
that he bought a “12-pack of RAZE Phantom Freeze”
for an unspecified price and that there are potentially
“thousands” of other class members. (Doc. 1 at 4,
10). The Court needs more facts to determine whether
Ringsmuth claims a good-faith amount of damages. See,
e.g., Calmes, 2017 WL 4621112, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16,
2017) (dismissing case because “[p]laintiff d[id] not
allege sufficient facts for the Court to plausibly infer that
the amount in controversy exceeded” the jurisdictional
Court thus dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.
Ringsmuth will have the opportunity to allege federal
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
it is now
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to correct the
deficiencies addressed in this Order on or before
November 6, 2019. Failure to do so
will result in the Court closing this case without further
 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 ...