COUTURE
v.
NOSHIRVAN
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 complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to inadequate pleading of diversity.
Plaintiffs filed a cyberstalking and civil conspiracy case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court found that the pleading of the …
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 Unincorporated Associations cases and more on FLexlaw
DOES 1-100 and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100,
Defendants. /
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE1
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jennifer Couture’s and Ralph Garramone M.D. P.A. d/b/a Garramone Plastic Surgery’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). This is a cyberstalking and civil conspiracy case filed in federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). But diversity is unclear. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases with complete diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte
Here, diversity is unclear because Plaintiffs did not properly plead Garramone’s citizenship. Garramone is a “professional association” (“PA”) (Doc. 1 at 2). But to determine Garramone’s citizenship, Plaintiffs utilized the test for corporations, listing Garramone’s place of organization and principal
place of business. (Doc. 1 at 2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). That is not the correct test for PAs. To determine citizenship, “[u]nincorporated associations . . . must [plead] the citizenship2 of each of their members.” Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F. 3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 189-195 (1990) (refusing to extend treatment of corporations as “citizens” to other entities and holding that non-incorporated entities must prove the citizenship of all its members). And if any members
are also unincorporated associations, the Court must know the citizenship of all members of that association as well. See Orchid Quay, LLC v. Suncor Bristol Bay, LLC, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (“[T]he
many layers of partners or members there may be.”). Because Plaintiffs failed to tell the Court the member(s) of Garramone and their citizenship(s), Plaintiffs have not adequately pled diversity. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by June 13, 2023. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 30, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1990)
- Underwriters AT Lloyd's v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2010)