Ashanti Buckner v. Stuart Brown

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-2440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-2440 __________

ASHANTI BUCKNER, Appellant

v.

STUART BROWN; BROWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLC ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00955) District Judge: Honorable Mark R. Hornak ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 14, 2024 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 24, 2025) ___________

OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Ashanti Buckner appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We will affirm in part, vacate in

part, and remand for further proceedings.

Buckner filed a pro se complaint against defendants Stuart Brown and Brown

Business Ventures LLC alleging defamation and breach-of-contract claims. Buckner

relied on diversity of citizenship to support the Court’s jurisdiction. The District Court

screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed the case without

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Buckner failed to establish

diversity of citizenship amongst the parties. The Court noted that Buckner could bring

the case in Pennsylvania state court. Buckner appealed, and we have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. See G.W. v. Ringwood Bd. of Educ., 28 F.4th 465, 468 (3d Cir.

2022).

We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal. See Gould Elecs.

Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the

party asserting its existence.” Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99,

105 (3d Cir. 2015). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, “no plaintiff may be a citizen of

the same state as any defendant.” GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888

F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A corporation is a

citizen in its state of incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of

2 business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The citizenship of a limited liability company is

determined by the citizenship of its members. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood,

592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). But rather than affirmatively alleging each member’s

citizenship, the plaintiff suing a limited liability company may allege that none of the

members are citizens of the plaintiff’s state of citizenship. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 800

F.3d at 107-08.

In her complaint, Buckner pleaded that she is a citizen of Pennsylvania and

defendant Brown is a citizen of Georgia. She also pleaded that Brown Business Ventures

is incorporated under Pennsylvania state law and has its principal place of business in

Georgia. If Brown Business Ventures is a corporation, Buckner failed to establish

diverse citizenship because Buckner and Brown Business Ventures are both Pennsylvania

citizens. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c). If, as the District Court surmised, Brown

Business Ventures is a limited liability company, Buckner failed to establish diverse

citizenship because she did not allege that the company’s members are not Pennsylvania

citizens. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 800 F.3d at 107-08. Thus, the District Court

properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

However, the District Court dismissed Buckner’s complaint without providing

leave to amend. We have held that courts should dismiss inadequate complaints without

leave to amend only if the amendment would be futile or inequitable. See Grayson v.

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 2002). This remains true when the

3 complaint has a jurisdictional defect. See, e.g., Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip.,

Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014); Frey v. EPA, 270 F.3d 1129, 1132 (7th Cir.

2001); see also GBForefront, L.P., 888 F.3d at 36; Neiderhiser v. Borough of Berwick,

840 F.2d 213, 216 n.6 (3d Cir. 1988).

Here, we cannot say that it would have been futile for Buckner to amend her

allegations concerning diversity. Buckner’s pro se complaint form did not show how to

plead the citizenship of a limited liability company; it only showed how to plead the

citizenship of an individual and a corporation. If Brown Business Ventures is an LLC,

the fact that Buckner pleaded it as a corporation is a technical defect that could be cured

by amendment. On appeal, Buckner asserts that the Appellees are neither Pennsylvania

residents nor organized under Pennsylvania state law, and that they are Georgia citizens.

And if, as Buckner now says on appeal, Brown Business Ventures is not a Pennsylvania

citizen, the parties might be sufficiently diverse. 1

Accordingly, we will affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further

proceedings.

1 We express no opinion concerning whether the parties are diverse or whether Buckner sufficiently pleaded the amount-in-controversy requirement. 4