BLAIS

v.

WILLISTON CROSSING EAST LLC

1 Blais removed the eviction proceeding, but that action was remanded to state court. ECF No. 30. As the magistrate judge correctly explained, Blais’s complaint does not allege facts that could plausibly support a claim under the ADA or the FHA. So the federal claims will be dismissed. That leaves several state claims, but Blais has not sufficiently alleged jurisdiction as to those. To the extent Blais relies on pendant jurisdiction, I agree with the magistrate judge that the court should decline to consider the remaining state claims. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F. 3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”). But Blais does not rely solely on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction. He alleges diversity too. ECF No. 7 ¶ 2. To the extent he relies on that, though, he has not alleged sufficient facts. Among the defendants are limited liability companies, and their citizenship for diversity purposes turns on the citizenship of each member. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F. 3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). The state claims are therefore dismissed too, based on Blais’s failure to allege the membership of each LLC defendant (and the citizenship of the individual defendant). If Blais wishes to replead his state-law claims, he must allege the citizenship of each party. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. The claims for violations of the ADA and the FHA are dismissed for failure to state a claim. The remaining claims are dismissed for failure to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. Blais may file an amended complaint within 14 days. His failure to do so will result in a final order of dismissal.