United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DLTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 17, 2018, Plaintiff Edward Chevalier
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against INA
Trucking, LLC, Billy Ray Chandler, and Canal Insurance
Company (collectively, “Defendants”), in the
State Court of Clayton County, Georgia, asserting claims for
negligence and requesting an award of damages.
February 26, 2018, Defendants removed the Clayton 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 or the citizenship of Defendant Chandler. It
states only that Plaintiff is “a resident of the State
of Missouri” ( ¶ 4) and Chandler is “a
resident of the State of Alabama.” ( ¶ 5). To
show citizenship, however, “[r]esidence alone is not
enough.” Travaglio v. Am. Exp. 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)).
Notice of Removal also does not adequately allege the
citizenship of Defendant INA Trucking, LLC
(“INA”). It states only that INA is “a
foreign corporation with its principal place of business
located in Alabama.” ( ¶ 6). 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.
are required to file an amended notice of removal stating:
(1) the citizenship of Plaintiff Edward Chevalier; (2) the
citizenship of Defendant Billy Ray Chandler; and (3) the
identities of INA members and their respective
citizenships. The Court notes that it is required to
dismiss or remand this action unless Defendants provide 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).
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendant must file an Amended Notice of Removal on or before
March 30, 2018, 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 ...