MURILLO EID
v.
THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the parties must demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically complete diversity and the amount in controversy.
The notice of removal asserted diversity jurisdiction, but a party previously identified as The Michaels Organization, LLC, has been terminated, and t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
In addressing citizenship, the parties shall consider the legal requirements for alleging and proving the citizenship of individuals and different types of aggregates or entities. See generally Alliant Tax Credit Fund XVI, Ltd. v. Thomasville Cmty. Hous., LLC, 713 F. App’x 821, 824 (11th Cir. 2017). The requirements include: (1) As to individuals: the individual's domicile (not merely residence). See Smith v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 991 F. 3d 1145, 1149 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002)). (2) As to corporations: the corporation's place of incorporation and principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). (3) As to partnerships: the citizenship of each general and each limited partner (the citizenship of each partner shall be addressed as provided for in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) herein). See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004); Vill. Fair Shopping Ctr. Co. v. Sam Broadhead Tr., 588 F. 2d 431, 433 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979). (4) As to limited liability companies: the citizenship of each member (the citizenship of each member of the LLC shall be addressed as provided for in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) herein). Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F. 3d at 1022.
In addressing the amount in controversy, the parties shall identify the specific factual bases for alleging the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, keeping in mind that parties are not permitted to simply agree or stipulate among themselves that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Travaglio v. American Exp. Co., 735 F. 3d 1266, 1269-70 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[I]t is fundamental that parties may not stipulate to federal jurisdiction."); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is insufficient...").
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2024.
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Williams v. Best BUY Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Tina arie Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Vill. Fair Shopping Ctr. Co. v. The SAM Broadhead Tr., 588 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1979)