WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
JADESTATION HOLDINGS, 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 dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy.
Plaintiff insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action concerning a commercial property insurance policy issued to Defendant. The dispute aro…
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 Citizenship Of Limited Liability Companies cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff sues because it wants the Court to “resolve questions of actual controversy involving a commercial property insurance policy issued to” Defendant Jadestation Holdings, LLC. (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff insured two of Defendant’s buildings that Hurricane Ian allegedly damaged. Defendant has invoked appraisal under the insurance policy, but the parties cannot agree on its scope and other matters. But the Court must dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must ask about their jurisdiction sua sponte when it is lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff filing in federal court “must allege facts that, if true, show federal subject matter jurisdiction over [the] case exists.” Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F. 3d 1266, 1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013). If the court has no jurisdiction, it “must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Plaintiff cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Wendy’s Int’l, Inc. v. Birmingham, 868 F. 2d 433, 435 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that before declaratory relief is available under the Act, an independent basis for federal jurisdiction must be established). A court has such jurisdiction (1) if the parties are citizens of different states; and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F. 3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). But Plaintiff has satisfied neither requirement. First is citizenship. For a limited liability company, like Defendant, 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 LLC member must be diverse from the opposing party. Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F. 3d 1221, 1224-25 (11th
Cir. 2013). The Complaint identifies Defendant’s sole member, Jan Yi Luo and then says Jan Yi Luo is a Florida citizen because he lives at an address in Doral, Florida. Not quite. Residency is not enough to prove citizenship. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”). Rather, citizenship is determined by the person’s “domicile,” or “the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment . . . to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254,
1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff simply cannot rely on Jan Yi Luo’s residency to show citizenship. Second is the amount in controversy. To the extent that Plaintiff tries to aggregate the damage at each building to exceed the $75,000 threshold, it provides no authority on its ability to do so. The Complaint also mentions Plaintiff issuing payment to Defendant for $41,401.94, but nothing is said on whether Plaintiff accepted payment, which could affect the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Murphy v. First Liberty Ins. Co., No. 2:19-cv-737-FtM-
60MRM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2020) (“The amount in controversy in this case is calculated by subtracting the deductible from the total purported damages.”). In sum, because the Notice of Removal lacks enough information on citizenship and the amount in controversy, the Court dismisses the Complaint.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company may file an amended complaint on or before November 3, 2023. Failure to do
so may result in the Court closing this action without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 27, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Tina arie Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Wendy's Int'l, Inc. v. The City OF Birmingham, 868 F.2d 433 (11th Cir. 1989)