United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 22, 2017, Plaintiff National Indoor RV Centers-GA, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint against
Defendant Jayco, Inc. (“Defendant”), in the State
Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, asserting a claim for
violation of the Georgia Recreational Vehicle Franchise Law
and seeking a temporary restraining order, interlocutory and
permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, damages, and
attorney's fees and expenses.
September 13, 2017, Defendant removed the Gwinnett County
action to the Court based on diversity of citizenship.
(Notice of Removal ).
Notice of Removal asserts that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 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,
Plaintiff's Complaint raises only questions of state law
and the Court only could have diversity jurisdiction over
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)). 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 it principal office. See
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.,
374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004).
Notice of Removal does not adequately allege Plaintiff's
citizenship. It states only that Plaintiff is “a
Georgia limited liability company, ” “Plaintiff
does not have any members in Indiana, ” and,
“[t]herefore, Plaintiff is not a citizen of
Indiana.” (Notice of Removal at 2-3). This allegation
is insufficient. Defendant is required to allege the identity
of all of the LLC's members and their respective
citizenship in order for the Court to determine if it has
subject matter jurisdiction. See Rolling Greens, 374
F.3d at 1022.
Defendant is required to file an amended notice of removal
stating the identities of its members and their respective
citizenships. The Court notes that it is required to
dismiss or remand this action unless Defendant provides the
required supplement alleging sufficient facts to show the
Court's jurisdiction. See Travaglio v. Am. Express
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).
for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendant must file an Amended Notice of Removal on or before
September 19, 2017, that provides the information required by
 “[W]hen an entity is composed of
multiple layers of constituent entities, the citizenship
determination requires an exploration of the citizenship of
the constituent entities as far down as necessary to unravel
fully the citizenship of the entity before the court.”
RES-GA Creekside Manor, LLC v. Star Home Builders,
Inc., No. 10-cv-207, 2011 WL 6019904, at *3 (N.D.Ga.
Dec. 2, 2011) (quoting Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC ...