POST

v.

BIOMET, INC.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F. 3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001). This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading, Corp., 128 F. 3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff initiated the instant action on May 27, 2020, by filing a five-count Complaint (Doc. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “the parties are citizens of different States, and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” See Complaint ¶ 14. However, Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the citizenship of Defendants Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, and Biomet Manufacturing Corporation n/k/a Biomet Manufacturing, LLC (the LLC Defendants). As such, the Court is unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity or that “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 412; see also Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (“When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal”). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Thus, to properly determine the citizenship of a limited liability company, the Court must consider the citizenship of each of its members. See id. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a “wholly owned subsidiary” of Biomet US Reconstruction, LLC, which in turn, is a “wholly owned subsidiary” of Biomet, Inc., an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. See Complaint ¶¶ 5, 7. Plaintiff asserts that Biomet Manufacturing LLC is “a wholly owned subsidiary” of Biomet, Inc. as well. Id. ¶ 9. However, as aptly stated in Traffas v. Biomet, Inc. with regard to these very Defendants “the Complaint’s allegations that various Biomet LLCs are whollyowned subsidiaries do not permit the court to conclude that plaintiff and defendants are diverse for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction,” because it is membership, not ownership, that is critical for determining the citizenship of an LLC. See Traffas v. Biomet,Inc., No. 19-2115-DDC-JPO, 2020 WL 1467313, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2020) (collecting cases); see also AmGuard Ins. Co. v. Middleton, Civil Action No. 18-cv-0261, 2018 WL 3370568, at *1 (W.D. La. July 19, 2018) (“[I]t is membership that is critical for determining citizenship for diversity purposes, so allegations in this regard should be clear about what entities are actually members of others. Terms such as wholly-owned subsidiary leave room for doubt.”); Ferrara v. Munro, No. 3:16-CV-950(CSH), 2016 WL 6892073, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2016) (“Plaintiffs have alleged that [individual] is the ‘owner, operator, and alter ego’ of [defendant LLC]. If that means that [individual] is the sole member of that limited liability company, Plaintiffs must specify that fact.”). The Court acknowledges that the terms “owner” and “member” have sometimes been used synonymously with respect to limited liability companies. See, e.g., Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F. 3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). Nonetheless, these terms are not always interchangeable.¹ Indeed “[t]here are other ways, such as by using other entities, that [a

In addition, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun complaint contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). As a result, “most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F. 3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. See id. Here, Counts II-V of the

Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own initiative); see also Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1321 n.10 (“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite statement], the district court ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun pleading and give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”). In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a corrected complaint which properly establishes diversity of citizenship between the parties such that this Court has jurisdiction over this action, and corrects the shotgun nature of the Complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff shall file a corrected complaint? curing the shotgun nature of the Complaint and the jurisdictional deficiencies on or before June 12, 2020. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. 3. Defendants shall respond to the corrected complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on May 28, 2020.

United States District Judge

Ic11 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties