CUHACI

v.

KOURI GROUP, LP

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Defendant Kouri Group, LP’s (“Kouri Group”) Answer to the Verified Amended Complaint, ECF No. (“Answer”), filed on June 23, 2021. In its Answer, Defendant Kouri Group contests the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and asserts that complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. ECF No. at 12. Specifically, Defendant Kouri Group contends that “[t]here is no diversity among the parties” because “Andrew Kouri, a Canadian, is the general partner of Kouri Investments Limited Partnership which is a partner of Kouri Group, LP” and “[Plaintiff] is also a Canadian.” Id. The Court has carefully reviewed the Answer, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. 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

Accordingly, “the Court lacks sufficient information to satisfy the jurisdictional inquiry.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2.

The Court also highlights that Plaintiff’s “belief” as to the citizenship of Defendant Echemendia is also insufficient to establish the jurisdictional threshold necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See Dockery v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No. 19-21904-CIV, 2019 WL 8895231, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2019) (explaining that pleading residency only “upon information and belief . . . does not qualify as a ‘fact’ establishing jurisdiction. . . . A party’s citizenship must be asserted without qualification.”); Clayton Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Squire Dental Mgmt., LLC, No. 3:20-cv-1165-J-34JBT, 2020 WL 6263756, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2020) (“Allegations premised only on ‘information and belief’ are plainly insufficient to establish the jurisdictional thresholds necessary to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”); Case No. 20-cv-23950-BLOOM/Louis

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Dev., LLC v. Sumday Vacations, LLC, No. 6:19-cv-982-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 10375473, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2019) (“alleging citizenship on ‘information and belief? is insufficient”); Wilkins v. Stapleton, No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL 11219132, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug.¹, 2017) (“DO NOT allege jurisdictional facts ‘on information and belief.’”).

Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before July 9, 2021, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a detailed statement setting forth the basis for his representation that complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and each Defendant in this case. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to dismissal without prejudice, without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, Y 29, 2021.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record