Diamondhead Beach Resort, LLC v. Safety Specialty Insurance Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DIAMONDHEAD BEACH RESORT, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-560-SPC-NPM

SAFETY SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON,

Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 4). After Plaintiff filed its initial pleading, the Court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). Specifically, Plaintiff did not show complete diversity because it made deficient allegations on its citizenship along with one Defendant’s (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London). In dismissing, the Court explained how Plaintiff could fix the jurisdictional defects. Most obvious, Plaintiff—an LLC—needed to identify its members and their

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. citizenship. (Doc. 3 at 2 (“Since an LLC is a citizen of every member’s state, the Complaint must identify each of the members and their citizenship.”)).

Despite this, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint—which still fails to show complete diversity. Again, Plaintiff made no effort to demonstrate its own citizenship. It calls itself “a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lee County, Florida,” without identifying any

members. (Doc. 4 at 1). As the Court already said, “A ‘party must list the citizenships of all the members of the’ LLC.” (Doc. 3 at 2) (quoting Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004)). This is unexceptional, black-letter law.

What’s more, Plaintiff made no effort to correct the defects and properly identify Lloyd’s domicile. The Court told Plaintiff Lloyd’s isn’t a corporation and pointed to binding precedent saying so. (Doc. 3 at 3) (quoting Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1088 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Nevertheless, the Complaint alleges Lloyd’s is “a corporation with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom.” (Doc. 4 at 2). Perhaps the Court could forgive the statement if Plaintiff specified the relevant Lloyd’s subscribers (as directed). But like above, Plaintiff did not try to identify the

subscribers. Because Plaintiff again failed to plead complete diversity, the Court must dismiss. The Court, however, will not afford another opportunity to amend. Plaintiff—who is represented by counsel—had a two-week chance to identify the parties’ citizenship. Instead of taking that opportunity, Plaintiff refiled the deficient allegations a day after the Court’s Order. So the Court will enter judgment and close the case. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk 1s DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 26, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record