BIVINS
v.
HOLIDAY CVS, 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 a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity purposes includes all its partners, and the defendant failed to establish diversity by only providing general partner citizenship.
Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, sued defendants. Defendants removed the case based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the d…
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 Burden Of Proof For Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand at docket entry 6. The Defendants filed a response at docket entry 9. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted. 1. The Defendants removed this action on the basis of diversity of citizenship. DE 1.
2. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. Id.
3. The Plaintiff, in her Motion to Remand, argues that Defendant Forbes/Cohen, a limited partnership, has not established that its citizenship is diverse from the Plaintiff’s citizenship. DE 6.
4. Forbes/Cohen, as a limited partnership, is a citizen of each of the states in which its partners, both general and limited, are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[F]or purposes of diversity of citizenship, a limited partnership is a citizen of each state in which any of its partners, limited or general, are citizens.” (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)).
5. In response to the Motion, Forbes/Cohen only provides information on the citizenship of its general partners. DE 9 at 3.
6. Forbes/Cohen has provided no information on the citizenship of its limited partners. Id.
7. Forbes/Cohen has the burden to establish diversity of citizenship. E.g., Calbalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F. 2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1989). All doubts about removal should be resolved in favor of removal to state court. E.g., Chase v. Holiday CVS, LLC, No. 22-CV-20752, 2022 WL 2135446 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2022). 8. By not providing information on the citizenship of its limited partners, Forbes/Cohen has not met its burden to establish diversity of citizenship. For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [DE 6] is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court shall REMAND this matter to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE and deny all pending motions AS MOOT. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 1st day of August, 2023.
| TRRAPH, ROBIN L. ROSENBERG &
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
Copies furnished to Counsel 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)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1990)
- Perfecto Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1989)