UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
3333 CANAL STREET, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:21-cv-693-MMH-JRK
ROOFING SUPPLY GROUP - TAMPA, LLC, and BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). On July 15, 2021, Defendant Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. (Beacon) filed
a notice of removal, seeking to remove this case from the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. See generally Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice). In the Notice, Beacon asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
“[t]he Complaint seeks a declaration regarding a lease in an amount exceeding $75,000 in value, exclusive of interest and costs, and asserts a claim between citizens of different states.” See Notice ¶ 11. According to the Notice, “Beacon is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfax County,
Virginia” and “RSG is a citizen of Delaware and Texas.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4. In addition, Beacon alleges “[u]pon information and belief, Plaintiff’s member or members are citizens of Florida.” Id. ¶ 2. Upon review of these allegations, the Court is unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action
because Beacon has inadequately pled the citizenship of Plaintiff.1
1 The failure to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction in this case is certainly not unique. See Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL 11219132, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading challenge for the Bar.”). For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at
412. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam). Thus, to properly determine the citizenship of a limited liability company, the Court must consider the citizenship of each of its members. See id. Beacon alleges that Plaintiff’s “member or members” are Florida citizens but discloses neither the identities nor the nature of any of Plaintiff’s members.
Without knowledge of the identity and citizenship of Plaintiff’s members, the Court is unable to determine whether complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Osting- Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2010) (remanding case in which party
But, as aptly stated in Wilkins, the all-to-common “failure to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the jurisdictional requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of judicial resources that cannot continue.” Id. Indeed,
[t]he U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent screening cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of deficiencies, then rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause orders is time that could and should be devoted to the substantive work of the Court.
Id. at *1 n.4. As such, before filing any future pleadings in federal court, counsel is strongly encouraged to review the applicable authority on federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at *1-2 (bulleting several “hints” on how to allege federal diversity jurisdiction properly). invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction did not disclose the identity and citizenship of each member of an unincorporated entity); see also D.B. Zwirn
Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring plaintiff LLC to identify its members and their respective citizenship); Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 312 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2002) (instructing district court to remand action to state court where
defendant partnership’s jurisdictional allegations repeatedly failed to “tell us the identity and citizenship of the partners in the two entities that own [defendant partnership]”). Indeed, without such information, the Court cannot trace Plaintiff’s members’ citizenship “through however many layers of partners
or members there may be.” See Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); see also D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund,L.P., 661 F.3d at 126-27 (“If even one of Zwirn’s members is another unincorporated entity, the citizenship of each of that member’s members (or partners, as the
case may be) must then be considered.”); Zambelli Fireworks Mfg Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court finds Beacon’s allegations as to the citizenship of Plaintiff to be insufficient to allow the Court to satisfy its obligation to assure complete diversity exists before exercising
jurisdiction over this action. Moreover, to the extent Beacon attempts to allege this information, Beacon does so only “[u]pon information and belief.” See Notice ¶ 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
3333 CANAL STREET, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:21-cv-693-MMH-JRK
ROOFING SUPPLY GROUP - TAMPA, LLC, and BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). On July 15, 2021, Defendant Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. (Beacon) filed
a notice of removal, seeking to remove this case from the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. See generally Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice). In the Notice, Beacon asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
“[t]he Complaint seeks a declaration regarding a lease in an amount exceeding $75,000 in value, exclusive of interest and costs, and asserts a claim between citizens of different states.” See Notice ¶ 11. According to the Notice, “Beacon is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfax County,
Virginia” and “RSG is a citizen of Delaware and Texas.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4. In addition, Beacon alleges “[u]pon information and belief, Plaintiff’s member or members are citizens of Florida.” Id. ¶ 2. Upon review of these allegations, the Court is unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action
because Beacon has inadequately pled the citizenship of Plaintiff.1
1 The failure to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction in this case is certainly not unique. See Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL 11219132, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Diversity jurisdiction appears to create the biggest pleading challenge for the Bar.”). For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at
412. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam). Thus, to properly determine the citizenship of a limited liability company, the Court must consider the citizenship of each of its members. See id. Beacon alleges that Plaintiff’s “member or members” are Florida citizens but discloses neither the identities nor the nature of any of Plaintiff’s members.
Without knowledge of the identity and citizenship of Plaintiff’s members, the Court is unable to determine whether complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Osting- Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2010) (remanding case in which party
But, as aptly stated in Wilkins, the all-to-common “failure to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the jurisdictional requirements of the federal courts results in a waste of judicial resources that cannot continue.” Id. Indeed,
[t]he U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest district courts in the country and its limited resources are precious. Time spent screening cases for jurisdictional defects, issuing orders directing repair of deficiencies, then rescreening the amended filings and responses to show cause orders is time that could and should be devoted to the substantive work of the Court.
Id. at *1 n.4. As such, before filing any future pleadings in federal court, counsel is strongly encouraged to review the applicable authority on federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at *1-2 (bulleting several “hints” on how to allege federal diversity jurisdiction properly). invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction did not disclose the identity and citizenship of each member of an unincorporated entity); see also D.B. Zwirn
Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring plaintiff LLC to identify its members and their respective citizenship); Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 312 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2002) (instructing district court to remand action to state court where
defendant partnership’s jurisdictional allegations repeatedly failed to “tell us the identity and citizenship of the partners in the two entities that own [defendant partnership]”). Indeed, without such information, the Court cannot trace Plaintiff’s members’ citizenship “through however many layers of partners
or members there may be.” See Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); see also D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund,L.P., 661 F.3d at 126-27 (“If even one of Zwirn’s members is another unincorporated entity, the citizenship of each of that member’s members (or partners, as the
case may be) must then be considered.”); Zambelli Fireworks Mfg Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court finds Beacon’s allegations as to the citizenship of Plaintiff to be insufficient to allow the Court to satisfy its obligation to assure complete diversity exists before exercising
jurisdiction over this action. Moreover, to the extent Beacon attempts to allege this information, Beacon does so only “[u]pon information and belief.” See Notice ¶ 2. Allegations premised only on “information and belief,” are plainly insufficient to establish the citizenship of Plaintiff as necessary to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Payne v. Ivy, No. 6:18-cv-3-Orl-
18KRS, 2018 WL 1155987, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018) (“Allegations made ‘upon information and belief’ are not sufficient to support jurisdictional allegations, however.”); Matos-Cruz v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 6:17-cv-380- Orl-37TBS, 2017 WL 3268956, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Courts have held
that allegations concerning a party’s citizenship based only ‘on information and belief’ are insufficient.”); Principle Solutions LLC v. Feed.ing BV, No. 13-C-223, 2013 WL 2458630, at *2 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2013). In light of the foregoing and “in the hope of preventing the needless
expenditure of litigant and judicial resources that occurs when a case proceeds to trial in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction[,]” see Zambelli Fireworks, 592 F.3d at 419, the Court will afford Beacon an opportunity to provide the Court with sufficient information to establish the citizenship of the parties and
this Court’s diversity jurisdiction over the instant action.2 Accordingly, it is
2 Indeed, carefully ascertaining the citizenship of the parties and whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action is more than just an academic exercise, as is evident from two Eleventh Circuit cases decided in 2017. See Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp of Am., 849 F.3d 1313, 1316-1317 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (vacating summary judgment order after three years of litigation where court determined on appeal that the pleadings below had not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of a defendant limited liability company, and upon further inquiry, found that the defendant limited liability company had a non-diverse member); see also Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1222, 1228 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) (discussing whether sanctions were warranted in a case where summary judgment was reversed on appeal after the appellate court discovered that the pleadings did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, leading to the realization that there was no diversity jurisdiction) (“While the requirements of diversity ORDERED: Defendant Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. shall have up to and including August 20, 2021, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on July 20, 2021.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge
1e28 Copies to:
Counsel of Record
jurisdiction in this scenario are complicated, they are the law. No party in this case acted with bad intentions, but the result was a colossal waste of time and effort. We trust that the damage done to the parties’ credibility, finances, and time is enough of a sanction to curb their conduct and to serve as a warning to future diversity jurisdiction litigants. In the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”).