BLACK SIX LLC
v.
ALL AMERICAN REFINERY, 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.
Black Six LLC sought default judgment against All American Refinery for failure to respond, but the district court denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to adequately allege its citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction and did not properly support its request for attorneys' fees.
The court denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice, finding that the complaint's failure to properly allege the LLC's citizenship deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the motion otherwise failed to satisfy procedural requirements regarding attorneys' fees and page limits. The court granted leave to amend the complaint within 14 days to cure the jurisdictional defect.
[1] Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must assure themselves of jurisdiction even if the parties do not raise the issue.
[2] A jurisdictional defect cannot be waived by the parties and may be raised at any point during litigation.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction must be apparent from the Complaint's allegations”
Establishes the core holding that citizenship allegations for diversity jurisdiction must appear in the complaint itself, not in supporting documents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlack Six LLC filed a lawsuit against All American Refinery, Inc. in federal court. Plaintiff moved for default judgment after defendant failed to res…
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 Motion For Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman's Report and Recommendations on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (DE 20) (“Report”). In the Report, Judge Goodman recommends that the Motion be denied without prejudice. (DE 20 at 2.) Specifically, the Report finds that Plaintiff fails to "successfully allege its citizenship as a limited liability company” in its Complaint by listing the citizenships of all LLC members, to ensure that the Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. 7–8.) [fn 1] Additionally, the Report finds that the Motion does not “demonstrat[e] that service was proper or reference specific legal authority (or discussion) on [Plaintiff's] entitlement to attorneys' fees.” (Id. at 8.) In fact, the Report notes Plaintiff's request for fees was improperly placed in an exhibit rather than in its Motion and lacks much of the information required by Local Rule 7.3. (Id. at 8–10.) Finally, the Report notes that the Motion exceeds the page limits set by Local Rules
Page 1 of 2
7.1(c)(2). (Id. at 9.)
Plaintiff does not challenge any of the Report's conclusions in its filed Objections to Report and Recommendations (DE 21) (“Objections”). Instead, Plaintiff requests that the Report be adopted with the modification that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend its Complaint within fourteen (14) days to cure the defective jurisdictional allegations. (DE 21 at 3.) Therefore, the Court conducted a de novo review of the Report. Upon careful review of the Report, the Objections, the Motion, the record, and applicable law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report (DE 20) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (DE 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14 days) of the date of this Order to cure the jurisdictional defect identified in the Report.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 8th day of January, 2025.
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
[fn 1]: Plaintiff did list its sole LLC member and identify him as a Florida resident in its corporate disclosure statement (DE 12), however the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction must be apparent from the Complaint's allegations. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975)