Rabin et al v. Garwood et al, No. 1:2015cv04099 - Document 5 (N.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants file their Supplement to Removal on or before December 17, 2015, that provides the information required by this Order. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/2/2015. (anc)

Download PDF
Rabin et al v. Garwood et al Doc. 5 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Plaintiffs’ Complaint [1.1] raises only questions of state law and the Court only could have diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Diversity 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 Notice of Removal does not adequately allege Roane’s citizenship. The Notice of Removal states that Roane is “a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Tennessee, maintaining its principal office and principal place of doing business in Rockwood, Tennessee . . . .” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4). Roane Transportation Services, LLC’s name plainly shows that it is not a 2 corporation but a limited liability company. 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). The Court requires further information regarding Roane’s members and their citizenship to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter. Accordingly, Defendants are required to file a supplement to their Notice of Removal identifying each of Roane’s members and each member’s citizenship.1 The Court notes that it is required to dismiss this action, unless Defendants provide the required supplement alleging sufficient facts to show the Court’s jurisdiction or submits evidence establishing 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). 1 “[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 Venture, LLC v. CRM Ventures, LLC, No. 10-cv-02001, 2010 WL 3632359, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2010)). 3 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants file their “Supplement to Removal” on or before December 17, 2015, that provides the information required by this Order. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.