Opinion
6:24-cv-2007-PGB-EJK
12-06-2024
KECIA RODDY, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This cause comes before the Court upon jurisdictional review.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kecia Roddy (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing the initial Complaint (Doc. 1 (the “Initial Complaint”)) on November 4, 2024. Therein, Plaintiff brought various claims against Defendant Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC (“Defendant” or “Defendant LLC”). (Id.). Plaintiff asserted that the instant Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by reason of diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant.” (Id. ¶ 3). In support of the Court's diversity jurisdiction here, Plaintiff averred that Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Orange County, Florida. (Id. ¶ 1). Plaintiff further averred that Defendant “is a Delaware limited liability company [(“LLC”)] authorized to do business in Florida, whose corporate headquarters are located in Arizona.” (Id. ¶ 2). Finally, Plaintiff alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. (Id. ¶ 6).
On November 6, 2024, this Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed the Initial Complaint without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to adequately allege the Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 5). Specifically, the Court explained that Plaintiff had “fail[ed] to affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each of the members of the Defendant LLC” as required to demonstrate the complete diversity of the parties. (Id. at p. 2). However, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 3).
Plaintiff timely filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 6 (the “FAC”)). Therein, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant LLC's sole member was another LLC, Swift Transportation Company, LLC (the “member LLC”). (Id. ¶ 2). However, Plaintiff failed to allege the state of citizenship of each of the members of the member LLC. (See id.). The Court, acting sua sponte, once again dismissed the FAC without prejudice. (Doc. 10). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, and cautioned Plaintiff that failure to do so “will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice without leave to replead.” (Id. at p. 4).
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11 (the “SAC”)). The SAC adds to the aforementioned allegations regarding Defendants' citizenship that “Swift Transportation Company is the sole member of [the member LLC] with a principal place of business located in Arizona.” (Id. ¶ 2) (emphasis added).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction and must “zealously [e]nsure that jurisdiction exists” in every case. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001); see Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that a district court “is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). Thus, in a diversity action, the Court must ensure that the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). Complete diversity requires that the citizenship of every plaintiff be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005).
For diversity purposes, a limited liability company is a citizen of each state in which a member of the company is a citizen. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). As such, to sufficiently allege an LLC's citizenship, a party must list the citizenship of all the members of that entity. See, e.g., id.
Further, for diversity purposes, “corporations are citizens in the states of their incorporation and their principal place of business.” Id. at 1021 n.1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). “Thus, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party must identify its states of incorporation and principal place of business.” Helix Inv. Mgmt., LP v. Privilege Direct Corp., 364 F.Supp.3d 1343, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting Asphalt Pavings Sys., Inc. v. S. States Pavement Markings, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-255-J-34JBT, 2018 WL 3067906, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2018)).
III. DISCUSSION
The SAC, like both of its predecessor complaints, fails to establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (See Doc. 11, ¶ 2). Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that the sole member of Defendant's member LLC is a corporation. (See id.). However, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information to determine the citizenship of this corporation. (See id.). Specifically, Plaintiff fails to aver the state of Swift Transportation Company's incorporation. (See id.); Helix Inv. Mgmt., 364 F.Supp.3d at 1348. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether the parties are completely diverse. As a result, the SAC is due to be dismissed for failing to establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.