Davis v. Terrell

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION BRIAN DAVIS, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 6:24-cv-546-JA-RMN ROBERT TERRELL, J. RICHARD ESPINOSA, ADM CAPITAL, WILLIAM FERGUSON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLC, MIKE GERSTENBERGER, JAMES H. HAIG, HELEN L. HAIG, E&L TEXAS INVESTMENTS, ERIC SCHNEIDER, and QUEST TRUST COMPANY, Defendants.

ORDER This case is before the Court on review of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 30). Because Plaintiff has not, despite multiple opportunities, established that the parties are of diverse citizenship, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the initial Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff identified only the states of residence (rather than citizenship) of Plaintiff and the individual Defendants, and Plaintiff also did not adequately allege the citizenships of the business- entity Defendants. Plaintiff cured some of those deficiencies in the First

Amended Complaint, but the Court dismissed that complaint without prejudic because Plaintiff still did not sufficiently identify the citizenship of three of th Defendants—ADM Capital, LLC; William Ferguson Family Partnership, LTD and E&L Texas Investments. (See Order, Doc. 22). In his third attempt Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the citizenship of ADM Capital, LLC, but hi allegations regarding the citizenships of the other two Defendants still fal short. In its prior Order (Doc. 22), the Court noted in part that Plaintiffs “failur to identify the limited partners of [William Ferguson Family Partnership] anc the citizenships of each make it impossible for the Court to discern thé citizenship of this Defendant.” (Doc. 22 at 2). Rather than identify the limitec partners in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff vaguely alleges that “[t]h: limited partners of [this Defendant] are citizens of Texas and none are citizen: of the State of Indiana.” (Doc. 30 7 5). This is not sufficient. See, e.g., Guar Natl Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that “the identity and citizenship of the partners” are “vital bits of information”). The Second Amended Complaint’s allegations regarding the citizenship o! Defendant E&L Texas Investments are also deficient. Plaintiff now alleges that “E&L is a general partnership domiciled in Texas comprised of Eric □□□□□□□□□ and Linda Schneider.” (Doc. 30 { 9). The Court is unsure whether Plaintiff is attempting here to assert that Eric and Linda Schneider are the partners of

E&L, and it will not assume so. Plaintiff also includes a footnote stating that it asked E&L “to identify its entity type, owners and respective dom[iJcile, but received no response.” (Doc. 30 at 5 n.1). This reinforces the Court’s doubt about E&L’s citizenship and Plaintiffs assertion of it. In sum, despite repeated attempts, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that the parties are of diverse citizenship such that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows: 1. This case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida;en May 2 /_ : 2054. \ F— | _ “JOHN ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties