HANCOCK OUTDOOR TRADING COMPANY LLC
v.
INTUIT INC.
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 complaint failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction because it did not specify the citizenship of the plaintiff LLC's members.
Plaintiff Hancock Outdoor Trading Company LLC sued Intuit Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and declaratory relief, citing diversity j…
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
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Hancock Outdoor Trading Company LLC’s Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff sues Defendant Intuit Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and declaratory relief. And it cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In an action filed directly in federal court, the plaintiff must plead and prove jurisdiction. See King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F. 3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007). Diversity jurisdiction is one type of subject matter jurisdiction. And federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over a matter if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and there is complete
must be diverse from the opposing party. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). And individuals are citizens where they are domiciled, not necessarily where they are residents. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002). So to determine the citizenship of a limited liability company, the court must consider the citizenship of each of its members. Rolling Greens, 374 F. 3d at 1022. The Complaint makes a sweeping allegation on Plaintiff’s citizenship: “All of Plaintiff’s members are and, at all relevant times, were citizens and residents of Florida.” (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff identifies none of its members and their respective domiciles. Without such allegations, the Court cannot determine Plaintiff’s citizenship and has no
subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. (2) Plaintiff Hancock Outdoor Trading Company LLC may file an amended complaint on or before February 18, 2020. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 3rd day of February 2020.
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
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)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche et ux., 546 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2005)