DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC. v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedAugust 20, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00714
StatusUnknown

This text of DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC. v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc. (DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC. v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC. v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DNA COMPREHENSIVE THERAPY SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-714-SPC-NPM

NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC,

Defendant. /

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8). As outlined below, the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y.H. Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). “In a diversity action, the Court must ensure that the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse.” Kunce v. SPM of Alabama, LLC, No. 6:25-CV-533-PGB-RMN, 2025 WL 974674, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2025). Here, the Court has concerns about Plaintiff’s citizenship.

Plaintiff is a limited liability company. As such, it is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is domiciled. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004). Each of Plaintiff’s members must be diverse from Defendant for federal diversity

jurisdiction to exist. Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F.3d 1221, 1224-25 (11th Cir. 2013). When dealing with a limited liability company, it is necessary to “drill down into the ‘ownership flow chart’” to determine citizenship. CityPlace Retail, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.

20-11748, 2021 WL 3486168, at *3 (11th Cir. July 15, 2021). This is the case no matter how many layers are involved. Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, LLC, 851 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is common for an LLC to be a member of another LLC. Consequently, citizenship of LLCs often ends

up looking like a factor tree that exponentially expands every time a member turns out to be another LLC, thereby restarting the process of identifying the members of that LLC”). In its original complaint, Plaintiff failed to identify any of its members.

(Doc. 1). So the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to establish jurisdiction. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint (Doc. 8), but it is still jurisdictionally deficient. In it, Plaintiff alleges that it has five members: Elizabeth Dosoretz (a Florida citizen) and four family trusts, the trustees and beneficiary of which are Florida citizens. (Doc. 8 ¶ 5). This

will not do. Plaintiff cannot simply allege that four of its members are trusts and offer assurances that the trustees of such trusts are Florida citizens. Rather, “the Complaint must identify each of the [LLC’s] members and their

citizenship.” Accident Ins. Co., Inc. v. V&A Drywall & Stucco, Inc., No. 2:20- CV-00407-SPC-MRM, 2020 WL 3128861, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2020) (finding insufficient an allegation that each member is a resident of Florida); Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022 (explaining “a party must list the citizenships

of all the members of the limited liability company”). In other words, Plaintiff must identify each of the four trusts, the trustees and/or beneficiaries of the trusts, and the citizenship of each trustee and beneficiary. Plaintiff still has not properly established its citizenship. The Court will

permit Plaintiff one final chance to do so. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC’s amended

complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before August 27,2025. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 19, 2025.

, tite WObLatrat he 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.
374 F.3d 1020 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.
851 F.3d 1218 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
DNA Comprehensive Therapy Services, LLC. v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dna-comprehensive-therapy-services-llc-v-nextgen-healthcare-inc-flmd-2025.