Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00614/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00614-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS BISHOP, III, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:10-cv-614-MEF

)

MATRIX TROY MPH, LLC, dba ) (WO - Do Not Publish)

EVERGREEN ESTATES, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 22, 2010, Plaintiff Dennis Bishop, III (“Bishop”) filed this matter in the

Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. On July 15, 2010, Defendant Matrix Troy

MPH, LLC (“Matrix”) removed the action to this Court alleging diversity as the basis for

federal jurisdiction. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they “always

have an obligation to examine sua sponte their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of any

claim.” Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819 (11th Cir. 2003).

A federal court’s jurisdiction can be based upon either a question of federal law or

diversity of citizenship. Here only diversity jurisdiction is at issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, diversity jurisdiction requires the legal matter to exceed the sum or value of $75,000,

exclusive of interest and costs, and be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)(1). A party removing a case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship bears

the burden of establishing the citizenship of the parties. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.

Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004); Williams v. Best Buy

Case 2:10-cv-00614-MEF-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 4
Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001) (if a motion to remand is filed after a case

is removed the removing party bears the burden of proving the existence of federal

jurisdiction); 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

1

jurisdiction and if jurisdiction is properly challenged, that party also bears the burden of

proof”). Thus, as the removing party, Matrix must plead and, if challenged, prove the

citizenship of the parties.

In its Notice of Removal, Matrix alleges that jurisdiction is proper in this Court

because there is diversity of citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy is

greater than $75,000. Matrix alleges that Bishop is a citizen of Alabama. Matrix alleges that

it has a principal place of business in New York and a place of “incorporation” in Delaware.

Matrix concludes based on these facts that it is a citizen of New York.

The Complaint alleges that Matrix is an LLC. Matrix has denied the paragraph which

contains this allegation, but it is not clear to the Court from the state of the record if Matrix

is a corporation or an LLC. If it is a corporation, diversity exists, but Matrix would legally

be a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of both New York and Delaware, not just

New York as alleged. If it is actually an LLC, the Court lacks sufficient information to

determine its citizenship. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the citizenship of a limited

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 1981)

1

(en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

2

Case 2:10-cv-00614-MEF-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 4
liability company, as an artificial, unincorporated entity, is determined by the citizenship of

all the members composing the organization. See Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1021-22.

Thus, a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company

is a citizen. Id. at 1022. And, therefore, a limited liability company could be deemed a

citizen of more than one state and those states may have no connection to the place of the

LLC’s formation or operations. To sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited liability

company, a party must list the citizenship of all the members of the limited liability company.

Id. In examining the jurisdictional allegations presented in the Notice of Removal, the Court

finds they are lacking, as Matrix failed to either state that it is a corporation rather than an

LLC or to identify its members and the citizenship of each.

As a result of these deficiencies, the Court is unable to ascertain whether complete

diversity of citizenship exists and, therefore, the Notice of Removal fails to satisfy the

prerequisites of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Court is of the opinion that Matrix

should be permitted to amend its deficient Notice of Removal to specifically establish its

citizenship.

The Court is mindful of the instruction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that

prior to remanding a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon the failure of the

removing party to properly allege diversity, the district court must grant leave to amend. See

Corporate Management Advisors Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297-98

(11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before February 28, 2011,

3

Case 2:10-cv-00614-MEF-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/28/11 Page 3 of 4
Matrix shall file an amendment to its Notice of Removal that conforms to the findings of this

Order. Failure to plead the necessary jurisdictional prerequisites in a timely manner will

result in remand for lack of jurisdiction.

DONE this the 28th day of January, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 2:10-cv-00614-MEF-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/28/11 Page 4 of 4