M.B.K. SALES, LLC.
v.
DESIGNS BY FMC, INC.
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 plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal without prejudice.
Plaintiff M.B.K. Sales, LLC sued Defendant Designs by FMC, Inc. for breach of contract, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a Florida LLC…
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 Complete Diversity Of Citizenship cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court on sua sponte review is Plaintiff M.B.K. Sales, LLC’s Complaint (Doc. 1). M.B.K sues Defendant Designs by FMC, Inc. for breach of contract over outstanding commission payments. M.B.K. cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. “[A] federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking” and should do so “at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff who asserts diversity jurisdiction must prove that diversity jurisdiction exists. King
show that each of its members are diverse from FMC. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005); see also McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating that citizenship is determined by domicile, not necessarily residence). Although M.B.K. identifies its sole member, it fails to allege that member’s citizenship. (Doc. 1 at 2). Without complete diversity of citizenship, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court thus dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and gives M.B.K the opportunity to state the presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues of subject matter jurisdiction as stated herein.
(3) Any amended complaint must be filed on or before September 16, 2019. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 9th day of September, 2019.
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)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche et ux., 546 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2005)