Karpel v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided June 14, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-24168·Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Kevin Karpel, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-24168-Civ-Scola ) Knauf Gips KG, et al., Defendants. ) Order Granting Second Renewed Joint Motion to Amend Pleadings by Interlineation This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint stipulation of facts and second renewed joint motion to amend pleadings by interlineation. (ECF No. 142.) Having reviewed the motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, and acknowledging that the parties jointly request relief, the Court grants the motion. (ECF No. 142.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party seeking to amend its complaint outside of the time to amend it as a matter of course may do so only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Rule 15(a) reflects a policy of “liberally permitting amendments” and absent a “substantial reason to deny leave to amend” a plaintiff’s request should be granted. Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984). The parties jointly seek leave to amend the Plaintiff Kevin Karpel’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5) and the Defendants Knauf Gips KG and Knauf New Building System (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.’s (collectively, the “Knauf Defendants”) answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint (ECF No. 80) by interlineation for the limited purpose of substituting certain paragraphs to correct deficient jurisdictional allegations. The parties have already stipulated to the facts underlying the proposed amended allegations and admissions. (See ECF No. 142.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties have shown good cause for the limited amendment by interlineation requested. See 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 437 (2011) (“Subject to the discretion of the court, and in the absence of a statute or rule of court providing otherwise, amendment by interlineation is considered permissible.”). Accordingly: I. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff Kevin Karpel’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5) is hereby amended by interlineation and shall include the following allegations: 7(a). Defendant Knauf Gips KG is a German limited partnership, formed in Germany, with a principal place of business in Germany. A Kommanditgesellschaft (KG) is a limited partnership business structure in which two or more entrepreneurs or companies team up to run a trade under a common company. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Knauf Gips KG is akin to a domestic U.S. partnership. Its two partners are Gebr. Knauf KG and Isogranulat GmbH. 7(b). Defendant Knauf New Building System (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.) is a Chinese limited company, incorporated in China, with a principal place of business in China. Companies formed in China with the designation “Ltd.” are companies with limited liability under Chinese law. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Knauf New Building System (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.) is akin to a domestic U.S. corporation. Nonetheless, if characterized as being akin to a domestic U.S. limited liability company for diversity jurisdiction purposes, its sole member is Knauf Singapore Pte. Ltd. 7(c). Knauf Singapore Pte. Ltd. is a Singaporean limited company, incorporated in Singapore, with a principal place of business in Singapore. A company formed in Singapore with the designation “Ltd.” indicates that the ownership of the company is limited by shares, similar to a corporation formed in the United States. For purpose of diversity jurisdiction, Knauf Singapore Pte. Ltd. is akin to a domestic U.S. corporation. Nonetheless, if characterized as being akin to a domestic U.S. limited liability company for diversity jurisdiction purposes, its sole member is Knauf International GmbH. 7(d). Knauf International GmbH is a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, which is a German limited liability company, incorporated in Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Knauf International GmbH is akin to a domestic U.S. corporation. Nonetheless, if characterized as being akin to a domestic U.S. limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, its members are Gebr. Knauf KG and Isogranulat GmbH.1

1 See Env’t Prot. Comm’n of Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 8:20-CV- 2238-VMC-JSS, 2023 WL 1781559, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2023) (following dismissal, appeal, and limited remand by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of diversity jurisdiction, district court concluded that German GmbH entity is more akin to a domestic corporation for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and alternatively concluded that even if characterized as akin to a domestic LLC for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the members of the entity were diverse and allowed subject-matter jurisdiction). 7(e). Isogranulat GmbH is a German Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, which is a German limited liability company, incorporated in Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Isogranulat GmbH is akin to a domestic U.S. corporation. Nonetheless, if characterized as being akin to a domestic U.S. limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, its sole member is Gebr. Knauf KG. 7(f). Gebr. Knauf KG is a German limited partnership, formed in Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Gebr. Knauf KG is akin to a domestic U.S. partnership. All partners of Gebr. Knauf KG are identified and detailed in subparagraphs 7(g)–7(o). 7(g). Gebr. Knauf KG’s partners that are individual citizens of Germany and Austria are: Name Citizenship for Diversity Kampmeyer, Jörg German Knauf, Alexander H. German Knauf, Baldwin German Knauf, Christine German Knauf, Isabel German Knauf, Karl H. German Knauf, Karl K. German Knauf, Lothar German Knauf, Mathias M. German Knauf, Nikolaus German Knauf, Philippe E. German Knauf, Rupert N. German Knauf, Thies K.R. German Knotzer, Uwe Austrian Peter-Knauf, Beatrix German Werhahn, Angelika German

7(h). Gebr. Knauf KG’s partners that are German trusts are AFK Familienstiftung and CK Familienstiftung. 7(h)(i). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, AFK Familienstiftung is a German trust formed in Germany and is akin to a domestic U.S. traditional trust as it has the characteristics of a traditional trust, in which the trustee possesses certain customary powers and is the real party in interest. The trustee of AFK Familienstiftung is Alfons F. Knauf, an individual citizen of Germany. The beneficiaries of AFK Familienstiftung are Alfons F. Knauf, a German citizen, Alfons J. Knauf, a German citizen, and two minor children, each of which is a German citizen. 7(h)(ii). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, CK Familienstiftung is a German trust formed in Germany and is akin to a domestic U.S. traditional trust, in which the trustee possesses certain customary powers and is the real party in interest. The trustee of CK Familienstiftung is Carlo Knauf, an individual citizen of Germany. The beneficiaries of CK Familienstiftung are Carlo Knauf, a German citizen, Maximilian A. Knauf, a German citizen, and two minor children, each of which is a German citizen. 7(i). Gebr. Knauf KG’s partner that is a German limited liability company is Alexander Knauf Beteiligungs GmbH, a German limited liability company, incorporated in Germany, with its principal place of business in Germany. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Alexander Knauf Beteiligungs GmbH is akin to a domestic U.S. corporation.

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

Karpel v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Karpel v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG (Karpel v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herbert Espey v. Louie L. Wainwright
734 F.2d 748 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)