KUNCE
v.
SPM OF ALABAMA, 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 court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to establish complete diversity by not alleging the citizenship of all members of the LLC.
Plaintiff filed suit in state court, and the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal stated…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Amy Kunce (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action in state court on February 18, 2025. (Doc. 1-1). On March 26, 2025, Defendant SPM of Alabama, LLC ("Defendant”) removed the action to this Court under the basis of diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1 (the “Notice of Removal”)); 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Regarding the parties' citizenship, the Notice of Removal states that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and that Defendant is a citizen of Alabama. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Additionally, the Notice of Removal states that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id.).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction and must “zealously insure [sic] that jurisdiction exists" in every case. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F. 3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001); see Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that a district court “is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking"). Thus, in a diversity action, the Court must ensure that the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). Complete diversity requires that the citizenship of every plaintiff be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Thus, to achieve “complete diversity," no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants. Id.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is a citizen. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). As such, to sufficiently allege a limited liability company's citizenship, a party must list the citizenship of all the members of that entity. See, e.g., id.
III. DISCUSSION
Simply put, Defendant fails to establish complete diversity to support its Notice of Removal. (See Doc. 1). Defendant, SPM of Alabama, LLC, is a limited liability company. (Id. at p. 2). However, nowhere in the Complaint or Notice of Removal do the parties affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each of the members of the aforementioned limited liability company. (See Docs. 1, 1-1).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant SPM of Alabama, LLC is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the state of citizenship of each of its members on or before April 8, 2025. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 1, 2025.
PAUL G. BYRON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
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)
- Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche et ux., 546 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2005)