ASSOCIATED ENERGY GROUP, LLC
v.
LINEAS AEREAS SURAMERICANAS, S.A.S
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 failed to adequately plead subject matter jurisdiction because it did not allege the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff limited liability company.
Plaintiff, a limited liability company, filed a complaint against the defendant. The complaint alleged the amount in controversy and the citizenship o…
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 Business Associations cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Plaintiff Associated Energy Group, LLC’s Complaint, ECF No. . For the reasons discussed below, the above-styled case is dismissed without prejudice. Federal courts are “‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)).
As such, a “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006).
Further, “once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 410. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), ‘all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.’” First Home Bank v. Net Zero LLC, No. 3:20-cv-150-J-34MCR, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412)). “The burden of pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction is properly challenged, that party also bears the burden of proof.” Ray v. Bird & Son & Asset Realization Co., 519 F. 2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975).1
“[F]or the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated business association or entity, such as a general or limited partnership or a limited liability company, is not a ‘citizen’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in its own right.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 (citing Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 820 F. 2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987)). Rather, the longstanding rule is that “the citizenship of an artificial, unincorporated entity generally depends on the citizenship of all the members composing the organization.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F. 3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)).
With regard to the existence of diversity jurisdiction, “a limited partnership is a citizen of each state in which any of its partners, limited or general, are citizens.” Id. (citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-96). “Therefore, in order to sufficiently allege the citizenship of an unincorporated business entity, a party must list the citizenships of all the members of that entity.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 (citing Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F. 3d 1022). Further, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Thus, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited liability company, “a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.” Mallory & Evans Contrs. & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F. 3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, the Complaint does not allege the citizenships of all the members of the Plaintiff. If the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction fails to adequately do so, as Plaintiff has failed to do here, it cannot satisfy its burden of establishing diversity of citizenship. Rolling Greens MHP L.P., 374 F. 3d at 1022. As a result, the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Case No. 23-cv-22371-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiency noted above no later than July 5, 2023. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 27, 2023.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1990)
- Constantinos Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. & Darin & Armstrong, Inc., 820 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1987)
- RAY v. Bird & SON & Asset Realization Co., Inc., 519 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2011)