UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61161-CIV-SINGHAL

RUNWAY 84, INC., & RUNWAY 84

REALTY, LLC d/b/a ANTHONY’S

RUNWAY 84,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, 

LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO CERTIFICATE

NUMBER ARP-75203-20,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Upon review of Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint (DE [15]), the Court observed that Plaintiff failed to properly plead 

the citizenship of the parties as required to establish diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. In an Order to Show Cause (DE [26]) entered October 23, 2020, the Court 

directed Plaintiff to submit a Supplemental Complaint setting forth the citizenship of the 

Defendant members and the citizenship of the Plaintiff limited liability company. See 

Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th 

Cir. 2004) (citizenship of LLC includes citizenship of each member); Underwriters at 

Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1090 (11th Cir. 2010) (citizenship of 

Lloyd’s, London syndicate members must be alleged for diversity jurisdiction); Big League 

Ventures, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2020 WL 6037239, at *2 (S.D. 

Case 0:20-cv-61161-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Fla. May 31, 2020) (amount in controversy must be met for each name subscribing to the 

subject syndicate). 

Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint (DE [27]) that alleged the 

citizenship of the Defendant syndicate but failed to state the citizenship of the Plaintiff 

LLC’s members. The Court entered an Order (DE [28]) striking the Second Amended 

Complaint and again instructed Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Complaint setting forth the 

allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction. The Court warned that the case would be 

dismissed without prejudice if Plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. 

On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint that again failed to 

list the citizenship of the Plaintiff LLC’s members: “At all material times relevant to this 

Complaint, RUNWAY 84 REALTY, LLC, has been incorporated in the State of Florida, 

held its principle place of business in the State of Florida, is a citizen of the State of 

Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.” (DE [29], ¶ 3). But conclusory allegations regarding 

jurisdiction without factual support are not enough: 

The party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has the duty to 

establish that federal jurisdiction does exist, ... but, since the 

courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction, 

there is a presumption against its existence.... Thus, the party 

invoking the federal court's jurisdiction bears the burden of 

proof....

If the parties do not raise the question of lack of jurisdiction, it 

is the duty of the federal court to determine the matter sua 

sponte.... Therefore, lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and 

jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by 

consent, inaction or stipulation....

Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Basso 

v. Utah Power and Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir.1974)). 

Case 0:20-cv-61161-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

The Court has a responsibility to ensure jurisdiction over the action. Williams v. 

Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). The parties cannot agree to 

jurisdiction, nor can the Court create jurisdiction where none exists. Fitzgerald, 760 F.2d 

at 1251. Although the parties and the Court have expended great effort on the merits of 

this case, without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain the merits. 

Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, 849 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2017). 

Plaintiffs have not met the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is 

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT

any pending motions

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of 

October 2020.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61161-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 3 of 3