Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00386/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON WADSWORTH and )

GLENN WADSWORTH, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00386-N

)

CAPITAL CIRCLE HOTEL )

COMPANY, INC. d/b/a Sleep Inn )

Gulf Front Hotel d/b/a Slidell Hotel )

Venture, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Leave of 

Court to Amend the Original Complaint and Add an Additional Defendant, Tidy 

Staffing Solutions, Ltd. (Doc. 20). The Plaintiffs represent that counsel for the 

Defendant has been contacted regarding the substance of the motion and “has no 

objection” to the Court granting it. Nevertheless, upon consideration, the Court 

finds the motion is due to be DENIED.

This action was removed to this Court from Alabama state court under 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a), with diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) being the 

sole basis alleged for original jurisdiction. (See Doc. 1). Per the Defendant’s 

allegations in the notice of removal, which the Plaintiffs have not challenged, the 

natural person Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama, while the Defendant corporation 

is a Florida citizen (as it was incorporated in that state and has its principal place of 

business there, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). (Doc. 1 at 3 – 4, ¶ 7). 

Case 1:16-cv-00386-N Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 4
Though brought as a motion to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the present motion is in substance a motion for joinder 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, as it seeks to add an additional 

defendant, Tidy Staffing.1 See Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F.3d 858, 862 (11th 

Cir. 1998) (“Although Ingram styled her motion to add the City as a motion to 

amend her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), this amendment amounted 

to a joinder, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20[,]” where amendment solely sought to 

add an additional defendant.). Thus, “in determining whether to grant [the 

Plaintiffs’] motion, the [C]ourt [must] consider[] 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(e), which 

provides: ‘If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose 

joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or 

permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.’ ” Id.

The Plaintiffs allege that Tidy Staffing is “a corporate entity located in the 

State of Ohio but doing business on a regular basis in Baldwin County, Alabama...” 

(Id. at 3). This allegation is insufficient to establish Tidy Staffing’s citizenship for 

purposes of § 1332(a). If Tidy Staffing is indeed a corporation, as the Plaintiffs 

allege, then they must allege “every State and foreign state by which it has been 

incorporated and []the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of 

business...” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The Plaintiffs have alleged neither, instead 

 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is inapplicable because, “as an alleged joint tortfeasor, 

[Tidy Staffing] is a ‘dispensable’ party.” Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F.3d 858, 861 n.2 

(11th Cir. 1998) (citing Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 (1990) (citing Advisory 

Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), which state that “a tortfeasor with the usual 

‘joint-and-several’ liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with 

like liability”))).

Case 1:16-cv-00386-N Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 4
identifying only states where it is allegedly “located” or “does business.” 

However, the use of the identifier “Ltd.,” rather than “Inc.,” suggests that 

Tidy Staffing is in fact an unincorporated entity.2 The rule for diversity jurisdiction 

is “that the citizenship of an artificial, unincorporated entity generally depends on 

the citizenship of all the members composing the organization.” Rolling Greens, 

MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(per curiam) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)). See 

also Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1016 (2016)

(“So long as ... an entity is unincorporated, we apply our ‘oft-repeated rule’ that it 

possesses the citizenship of all its members.” (reaffirming Carden)). As such, “to 

sufficiently allege the citizenships of ... unincorporated business entities, a party 

must list the citizenships of all the members” of those entities. Rolling Greens, 374 

F.3d at 1022. Accord Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee 

Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The Plaintiffs have not 

alleged this information either.

Under § 1447(e), a district court “ha[s] no discretion to add [a non-diverse 

party] as a defendant, retain jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits.” 

Ingram, 146 F.3d at 862. Rather, when § 1447(e) applies, a district court has “only 

two options: (1) deny joinder; or (2) permit joinder and remand [the] case to state 

court.” Id. Because the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information to 

determine the citizenship of proposed additional defendant Tidy Staffing for 

 2 The “Business Name Search” tool on the website for the Ohio Secretary of State 

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ (last visited Oct. 11, 2016)) reveals that the entity 

registered as Tidy Staffing Solutions, Ltd. is a limited liability company.

Case 1:16-cv-00386-N Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 4
purposes of § 1332(a), the Court is unable to ascertain whether the joinder of Tidy 

Staffing will destroy diversity jurisdiction.3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the 

Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Original Complaint and 

Add an Additional Defendant, Tidy Staffing Solutions, Ltd. (Doc. 20), construed as 

a motion to join Tidy Staffing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, is 

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 11th day of October 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 3 “It is . . . axiomatic that the inferior federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They 

are ‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as 

defined by Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a 

jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 

405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). 

Accordingly, “it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking ... [A] court should inquire into whether 

it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Id. at 

409-10. See also Ingram, 146 F.3d at 861-63 (raising issue of diversity-destroying joinder 

under § 1447(e) for the first time on appeal).

Case 1:16-cv-00386-N Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 4