United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roshanda Foster's
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand to State Court 
(“Motion to Remand”).
April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint, ( at 9-22
(ECF Pagination)), in the State Court of Fulton County,
Georgia. On May 11, 2017, Defendant Legacy Keys, LLC
(“Legacy Keys”) filed its Notice of Removal ,
asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Legacy Keys alleges
that the individual members of Legacy Keys, LLC, North
Investments, LLC, Watkins Realty Services, LLC, and Oak Coast
Properties, LLC (the “LLC Defendants”) are
“resident[s]” of either California or Florida.
(Notice of Removal ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11).
1, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand. Plaintiff
argues that the Notice of Removal fails to properly allege
the citizenship of the LLC Defendants, and thus the Court
lacks jurisdiction over this action. On June 13, 2017, Legacy
Keys filed its Motion to Amend Notice of Removal ,
seeking to amend its allegations to include that the members
of the LLC Defendants are “residents and citizens of
California.” ( at 1-2).
removed cases, the removing defendant has the burden to
establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. See
Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001). “[B]ecause removal jurisdiction raises
significant federalism concerns, federal courts are directed
to construe removal statutes strictly.” Griffith v.
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 884 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1221
(N.D. Ala. 2012) (citing Univ. of S. Ala v. Am. Tobacco
Co.¸168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). Removal
statutes are to be strictly construed, with all doubts
resolved in favor of remand. Id. (quoting
Lowe's OK'd Used Cars, Inc. v. Acceptance Ins.
Co., 995 F.Supp. 1388, 1389 (M.D. Ala. 1998)).
Keys contends the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
action. The Court has diversity jurisdiction over an action
in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and the
action is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). “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). A limited liability company is a citizen of any state
of which one of its members is a citizen. 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. To show
citizenship, “[r]esidence alone is not enough.”
Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269
(11th Cir. 2013). For United States citizens,
“[c]itizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile'
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, ” and
“domicile requires both residence in a state and
‘an intention to remain there indefinitely.'”
Id. (quoting McCormick v. Aderholt, 293
F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Keys' allegation in its Notice of Removal is insufficient
to establish the citizenship of the LLC Defendants, because,
to show citizenship, “[r]esidence alone is not
enough.” Id. Legacy Keys, attempting to cure
its defective pleading, seeks to amend its Notice of Removal
to properly allege citizenship. Legacy Keys, however, now offers
a contradictory, and unsworn, allegation that all of the
members of the LLC Defendants are citizens of California,
apparently forgetting that it had previously alleged
Defendant Realty Services, LLC's member was a Florida
Keys has had ample opportunity to properly establish that
removal is appropriate in this case. Its first opportunity
was when it filed its Notice of Removal and supporting
documents. Legacy Keys had a second opportunity in responding
to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, which put Legacy Keys on
notice that the diversity allegations in its removal petition
were deficient. Legacy Keys had a third opportunity when it
filed its Motion to Amend, which contains citizenship
allegations that contradict its Notice of Removal. Legacy
Keys has not satisfied its burden to show the parties are
diverse. The Court declines to grant Legacy Keys another bite
at the apple. Legacy Keys' Motion to Amend is denied, and
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Legacy
Keys, LLC's Motion to Amend Notice of Removal  is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Roshanda Foster's Motion
to Remand to State Court  is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to REMAND ...