MALLORY & EVANS CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS, LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM: The district court’s jurisdiction in this case is not contested, but jurisdiction cannot be created by consent. Lowry v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders & Helpers of Am,., 259 F. 2d 568, 575 (5th Cir.1958).
We are obligated to raise concerns about the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F. 2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1985) (citation omitted).
The complaint in this case alleges that Plaintiff Mallory & Evans Contractors and Engineers, LLC (“Mallory & Evans”) is a “Limited Liability Company created under the laws of the State of Georgia” with “[i]ts principal place of business ... in Scottdale, Georgia.” (Dkt 1 at 1.) This is an insufficient allegation of its citizenship. In Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir.2004), we held that a limited liability company, like a partnership, “is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” We continued: “To sufficiently allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company....” Id.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that Defendant Tuskegee University (“Tuskegee”) is “an Alabama institution of higher learning, located in Macon County, Alabama.” (Dkt 1 at 1.) This, too, is an insufficient allegation of citizenship.
Section 1332 does not mention institutions of higher learning. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006).
The complaint should allege the citizenship of both Mallory & Evans and Tuskegee. Because we suspect there may be diversity of citizenship, Mallory & Evans is invited to file in this court (within fourteen days after the date of this order) a motion for leave to amend the complaint to correct the deficient allegations of citizenship. “Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (2006).
See also Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Robbins Coal Co., 288 F. 2d 349, 350 (5th Cir.1961).
The parties are urged to agree both upon the grant of leave to file such amendment and upon the truth of the allegations of such amendment unless there is a bona fide dispute about the citizenship of Mallory & Evans or Tuskegee or both. Should no such motion be filed, the parties are directed to file (within twenty-one days after the date of this order) letter briefs, not exceeding five pages, addressing the issue of whether the record in this case includes evidence of Mallory & Evans’s citizenship and Tuskegee’s citizenship at the time suit was filed, and if not, to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp OF Am., 849 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2017)…), the pleadings were required (but failed) to provide the citizenship of each member of RSGO. Thus, we inquired of the parties how they thought this defect could and should be cured. See Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F. 3d 1304, 1304 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“We are obligated to raise concerns about the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”). From the answers to the jurisdictional question, it became apparent that RSGO was in fact not diverse at t…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2014)…about whether diversity jurisdiction had been properly pled. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”); Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F. 3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Therefore, appellate and subject matter jurisdiction are proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; id. § 1332. B. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), commands that we apply the s…
-
Nance v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 981 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2020)…50 should be reconstrued as a habeas petition and, if so, whether it was second or successive. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We are obligated to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1304 (11th Cir. 2011). A district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a state prisoner's second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus absent an order from the court of appeals authorizing it to consider the petition. Williams…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark v. Robbins Coal Co., Inc., 288 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1961)
- Lowry v. The Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 259 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1958)