United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
WORLD SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff,
KEVIN O'HALLORAN, as receiver for AirNet Systems, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and GLOBAL AEROLEASING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DLTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
26, 2017, Plaintiff World Solutions Management Group, LLC
(“Plaintiff” or “World Solutions”)
filed its Complaint .
Complaint asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 12).
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in
the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh
Circuit consistently has held that “a court should
inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at
the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is
well settled that a federal court is 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 this case,
the Complaint raises only questions of state law and the
Court only could have diversity jurisdiction over this
jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000 and the suit is between citizens of different
states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). “Diversity
jurisdiction, as a general rule, requires complete
diversity-every plaintiff must be diverse from every
defendant.” Palmer Hosp. Auth. of Randolph
Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994).
“Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined at
the time the suit is filed.” MacGinnitie v. Hobbs
Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005).
“The burden to show the jurisdictional fact of
diversity of citizenship [is] on the . . . plaintiff.”
King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1171
(11th Cir. 2007) (alteration and omission in original)
(quoting Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359
F.2d 954, 956 (5th Cir. 1966)).
Complaint does not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction
because it fails to identify the citizenship of Defendant
Global Aeroleasing, LLC (“GAL”). The Complaint
asserts that Defendant GAL is “a Florida limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Florida . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 10). This allegation is
insufficient because a limited liability company, unlike a
corporation, is a citizen of any state of which one of its
members is a citizen, not of the state where the company was
formed or has its principal office. See Rolling Greens
MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020,
1022 (11th Cir. 2004). “To sufficiently allege the
citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a
party must list the citizenships of all the members of the
limited liability company.” Id.
Complaint also asserts that Plaintiff “is a limited
liability company, none of whose members are citizens of
either Ohio or Florida. Its principal place of business is
[located in] Nevada.” (Compl. ¶ 7). This
allegation is insufficient because a “negative”
allegation does not satisfy Plaintiff's burden. See
D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra,
661 F.3d 124, 126 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Cameron v.
Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 324-25 (1888)) (explaining that an
allegation that a party is “not” a citizen of a
particular state is not sufficient to establish diversity
jurisdiction). Plaintiff is required to “specifically
allege each party's citizenship.” See Am.
Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co., 600
F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); see also Toms
v. Country Quality Meats, Inc., 610 F.2d 313, 316 (5th
Cir. 1980) (“[W]hen jurisdiction depends on
citizenship, citizenship should be “distinctly and
is required to file an amended complaint that properly
alleges the parties' citizenship. Failure to do so will
result in dismissal of this action. See Travaglio v. Am.
Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268-69 (11th Cir. 2013)
(holding that the district court must dismiss an action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the pleadings or
record evidence establishes jurisdiction); LR 41.3(A)(2),
NDGa (permitting the court to “dismiss a civil case for
want of prosecution if . . . [a] plaintiff . . . fail[s] or
refuse[s] to obey a lawful order of the court in the
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff shall file, on or before June 9, 2017, an amended
complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of the
parties in this case. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of this action.