United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
EMIL RIVERA-LOPEZ, by his executor wife AMANDA BETH RIVERA-LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all next of kin; J.N./J.J.; W.W.; M.P.; and C.H.; Plaintiffs,
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation doing business in Georgia; SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a Lockheed Martin Company, a Delaware corporation; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation; BOEING SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT SUPPORT, LLC, a Delaware corporation; SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT SERVICES; and THE BOEING COMPANY; Defendants.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed this case in this Court on August 23, 2019. (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiffs state that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because part
of the operative events occurred in a federal enclave, namely
the Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia, and pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the Court's diversity
jurisdiction. (Id. at 7.) Because Plaintiffs claim
diversity jurisdiction as a basis for jurisdiction, this
Court reviews the complaint to determine whether complete
diversity has been established between the parties. The Court
finds that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead the
citizenship of some of the parties.
party invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction bears
the burden of adequately pleading complete diversity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Ray v. Bird & Son
Asset Realization Co., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir.
1975) ("The burden of pleading diversity of
citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction,
and if jurisdiction is properly challenged, that party also
bears the burden of proof."). For the purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company
("LLC") is a citizen of every state in which any of
its members are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, LP v.
Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th
Cir. 2004) . The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has been
explicit in addressing the proper method to allege
sufficiently the citizenship of a LLC: "a party must
list the citizenships of all the members of the limited
liability company." Id. at 1022.
case, the complaint does not include a list of the individual
members, along with their citizenships, of Defendant Boeing
Sikorsky Aircraft Support, LLC. Rather, the complaint states
that Defendant Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, LLC is a
"Delaware corporation with its principle [sic] place of
business in Clarksville, Tennessee and doing business in
Georgia at the Hunter Army Airfield and on this
aircraft." (Doc. 1 at 6.) Upon this Court's review
of the entity details on file with the State of
Delaware's Department of State, Defendant Boeing Sikorsky
Aircraft Support, LLC is a limited liability company, not a
corporation. As discussed above, the information currently
pled in the complaint is not sufficient to establish complete
diversity. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs did not
clearly allege the citizenship of any of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs state that Plaintiff J.N., J.J., W.W., M.P., and
C.H. is or was "a member of the United States Army and
stationed at Hunter Army Airfield and at all times relevant
herein was a member of the Night Stalkers." (Doc. 1 at
4.) Plaintiffs have not alleged the citizenship of these
plaintiffs. Likewise, Plaintiffs do not state the citizenship
of Plaintiff Amanda Beth Rivera-Lopez or the citizenship of
the decedent Emil Rivera-Lopez.
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file an amended complaint within
fourteen days from the date of this order.
The amended notice should properly include the citizenship of
each party to this case, specifically the names and
citizenships of each member of every limited liability
company that is a party to this case and the citizenship of
 In Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981} (en
banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
October 1, 1981.
 The Court will not accept any amended
complaint that incorporates by reference any factual
allegation or argument contained in an earlier filing, or
offers only a piecemeal amendment. Defendant's amended
notice of removal should be a stand-alone filing that
independently contains all the factual ...