AV GROUP BOSTON, INC.
v.
AVB ENTERPRISE 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 District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a second order requiring AV Group Boston, Inc. to provide adequate jurisdictional allegations regarding the citizenship of AVB Enterprise LLC's members to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The parties' joint statement attempting to cure jurisdictional deficiencies was found insufficient because it failed to clearly identify all LLC members and their citizenship, rather than merely providing residential addresses.
The court held that the jurisdictional allegations remain defective because the parties failed to clearly identify whether Michael D Arama is the sole member of the LLC, identify any additional members, and most critically, allege the citizenship (rather than mere residence or address) of the LLC's members as required for diversity jurisdiction.
[1] Federal courts possess an independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction, even without a party's challenge.
[2] Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between all parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff AV Group Boston, Inc. sued Defendant AVB Enterprise LLC d/b/a Bonefly. The court previously identified deficiencies in jurisdictional allega…
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 Domicile Vs. Residence cases and more on FLexlaw
AVB Enterprise LLC d/b/a Bonefly, Defendant. Civil Action No. 22-21920-Civ-Scola
Second Order Requiring Amended Allegations
On January 24, 2024, the Court entered a sua sponte order identifying deficiencies in the jurisdictional allegations of the Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 18). (Order, ECF No. 46.) The Court's order directed the parties to file materials amending their jurisdictional allegations to address the deficiencies by January 31, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the parties attempted to comply with the Court's order by filing a joint statement as to diversity (ECF No. 47). Based on the joint statement, the jurisdictional allegations for the Plaintiff have been properly supplemented. However, the jurisdictional allegations as to the Defendant remain defective.
As provided in the Court's prior order, “because Bonefly is a limited liability company, the complaint must allege all the members of Bonefly, along with each member's respective citizenship.” (ECF No. 46) (citing Rolling Greens MHP v. Comcast SCH Holdings, LLC, 374 F. 3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th Cir. 2004).) However, the joint statement as to diversity remains vague. It does not specify whether the member identified in the statement, “Michael D Arama”, is the sole member or whether there are additional members. If the Defendant has other members that are individuals or entities, such members must also be identified in the parties' joint submission, along with their citizenship. If Mr. Arama is the sole member, the joint submission should specify that as well.
Additionally, the joint statement provides an address for Mr. Arama instead of alleging the citizenship of the member. Once again, as noted in the Court's prior order requiring amended citizenship allegations, it is the citizenship, or domicile, of an individual party that is the relevant inquiry, not his residence. Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F. 3d 1330, 1341- 42 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Domicile is not synonymous with residence; one may temporarily reside in one location, yet retain domicile in a previous residence."); Crist v. Carnival Corp., 410 F. App'x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that an allegation that a party is a “resident” of a State is “insufficient for diversity jurisdiction purposes because residency is not the equivalent of citizenship”).
Accordingly, it is not enough to allege that the Defendant's member has an address in the State of Florida because these allegations fail to identify the citizenship of the member.
In short, based on the allegations in the joint statement as to diversity, the Court is still unable to ascertain whether it may exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this case. The Court will grant the parties one additional opportunity to submit materials adequately alleging subject matter jurisdiction, which must be filed by February 8, 2024. If the parties fail to provide the facts necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the pleadings, as necessary, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, albeit without prejudice.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 2, 2024.
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Molinos Valle del Cibao v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011)