EL KOMATI, LLC
v.
VANTAGE RISK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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 defendant failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly establish the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff limited liability company.
The defendant filed a notice of removal, which the court found deficient for failing to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction. The court ordered…
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
Timothy Talbott—Vantage has not adequately alleged Timothy Talbott’s domicile. Second, the Court will not assume without basis that Timothy Talbott is the only member of El Komati. Timothy Talbott may be the only member of El
Komati, but Vantage has not said so. And Vantage has provided El Komati’s Articles of Organization, which allow for multiple members.3 An LLC is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is domiciled—not just where its managing member is domiciled. Vantage’s Supplement leaves the Court wondering whether there are other members of El Komati and, if so, the domicile of those members.
2 The 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports make clear that the address provided by Vantage for Robert Walker is actually El Komati’s “Current Principal Place of Business” for those years. (Doc. 18-19 at 5-6). Similarly, the Annual Reports from 2010 through 2023 show that the address provided by Vantage for Timothy Walker is actually El Komati’s “Current Principal Place of Business” for those years. (Doc. 18-19 at 7-20). 3 “The members of this Company may admit new members to the Company as more fully described in and subject to the terms, conditions and requirements set forth in the Company’s Operating Agreement and Regulations.” (Doc. 18-19 at 2). If this Court allows a case to proceed when it does not have jurisdiction, the result is “a colossal waste of time and effort” for everyone involved— including Vantage. Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1218, 1228 (11th Cir. 2017). Jurisdiction is a matter of facts, not a matter of faith. See id. at 1228 (“Everyone involved in this case trusted that diversity jurisdiction existed, but no one verified it. The law firms involved trusted their clients. The clients trusted their lawyers. The law firms trusted each other, and the district court trusted them. But there was no verification”). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. This action is REMANDED to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 31, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2013)