POLK
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2020-06-05
No. 3:20-cv-549
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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.

Holding

The court held that the defendant's notice of removal failed to adequately allege its citizenship, making it impossible to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Miranda Polk sued General Motors LLC. General Motors LLC removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The defendant'…

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.

Topics
Citizenship Of Limited Liability Companies 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Citizenship Of Limited Liability Companies cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

that an LLC could wholly own and control another LLC without actually being a member of it.” See AmGuard Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3370568, at *1. As such, the Court is unable to presume that General Motors LLC’s allegations regarding its ownership are intended to

es Maal be United States District Judge Ic11 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties

? Indeed, carefully ascertaining the citizenship of the parties and whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action is more than just an academic exercise, as is evident from two Eleventh Circuit cases decided in 2017. See Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp of Am., 849 F. 3d 1313, 1316-1317 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (vacating summary judgment order after three years of litigation where court determined on appeal that the pleadings below had not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of a defendant limited liability company, and upon further inquiry, found that the defendant limited liability company had a non-diverse member); see also Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1218, 1222, 1228 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) (discussing whether sanctions were warranted in a case where summary judgment was reversed on appeal after the appellate court discovered that the pleadings did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC, leading to the realization that there was no diversity jurisdiction) (“While the requirements of diversity jurisdiction in this scenario are complicated, they are the law. No party in this case acted with bad intentions, but the result was a colossal waste of time and effort. We trust that the damage done to the parties’ credibility, finances, and time is enough of a sanction to curb their conduct and to serve as a warning to future diversity jurisdiction litigants. In the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdiction in the 21st century.”).

Footnotes
1 For example, under Delaware law, “one can have an ownership interest in a limited liability company without being a member.” See Taylor v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-4403-AT-LTW, 2016 WL 6662734, at *2 (N.D. Ga. July 29, 2016) rejected, in part, but adopted in pertinent part by 2016 WL 7131593, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 2016); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-704 (explaining the circumstances in which the assignee of a limited liability company interest can become a member); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-702(b)(1) (“(b) Unless otherwise provided in a limited liability company agreement: (1) An assignment of a limited liability company interest does not entitle the assignee to become or to exercise any rights or powers of a member.”); Del. Code. Ann. tit. 6, § 18-101(8) (“‘Limited liability company interest’ means a member’s share of the profits and losses of a limited liability company and a member’s right to receive distributions of the limited liability company’s assets.”); see also Busch v. Lee Enters., Inc., No. 09-780-GPM, 2009 WL 5126799, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009) (finding citizenship allegations pertaining to a Delaware limited liability company were insufficient where plaintiffs alleged that defendant LLC was “entirely owned” by a corporation, and the citizenship of that corporation, but failed to allege whether the corporation was the sole member of the LLC). establish its membership. Therefore, the information presently before the Court is insufficient to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.” In light of the foregoing, the Court will give General Motors LLC an opportunity to provide the Court with additional information to establish its citizenship and this Court’s diversity jurisdiction over the instant action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendant General Motors LLC shall have up to and including June 26, 2020, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on June 5, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw