AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MAMMOTH CONSTRUCTORS, 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 plaintiff failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the defendant LLC, thus failing to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company filed a diversity action seeking declarations about an insurance policy. The complaint did not properly a…
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 Limited Liability Companies cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company’s Complaint, in which it seeks declarations about an insurance policy at issue in an underlying state court suit. (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff brings this diversity action, it has the burden on jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F. 3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2000). Proceeding in federal court, it must show the parties are completely diverse with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). And
F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has not properly plead the citizenship of Defendant Mammoth Constructors, LLC to show the requisite diversity. A limited liability company— like Mammoth—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). So each LLC member must be diverse. Because a limited liability company is a citizen of every member’s state, a pleading must identify each of its members and their citizenship.
Rolling Greens, 374 F. 3d at 1022 (stating a “party must list the citizenships of all the members of the” LLC). The Complaint here doesn’t do so. For Mammoth, the Complaint only alleges the principal address and its registered agent’s location. That’s not enough. Without identifying
Mammoth’s members and their domiciles, the Court cannot conclude diversity exists. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F. 3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining difference between residence and citizenship (i.e., domicile)). So the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff may amend to adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C § 1653. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff may FILE an amended complaint on or before February 10, 2023. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 3, 20238.
, Lh platrath< 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
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)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Tina arie Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005)