UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-22518-CIV-MORENO

LEOPARD 34 M, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Demand

(D.E. 19), filed on November 24, 2020. 

THE COURT has considered the motion, the response, the reply, the pertinent portions of 

the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED.

I. Introduction

This is a marine insurance dispute. In June 2019, Plaintiff’s vessel sustained damage via 

overheated engine. It waited until October 2019 to submit the claim to its insurer, the Defendant, 

and the Defendant claimed that the passage of time allowed spoliation of the evidence. 

Nonetheless, Defendant alleges the cause of damage was mussel growth and because the policy 

excludes marine growth from the covered causes of loss, it does not have to pay out on the policy. 

The instant motion concerns the Plaintiff’s jury demand. Defendant moves to strike that 

demand because the complaint, which attempts to invoke this Court’s diversity and admiralty 

Case 1:20-cv-22518-FAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2021 Page 1 of 4
2

jurisdiction, fails to sufficiently allege facts that invoke diversity jurisdiction. Alternatively, even 

if the Plaintiff did properly invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, it specifically 

“unambiguously made an election to proceed in admiralty when it designated this case as ‘an 

admiralty and maritime cause within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.’”

Ultimately, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand because 

there is no right to trial by jury for admiralty claims, and the Plaintiff explicitly elected to proceed 

in admiralty while also failing to properly invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

II. Plaintiff Did Not Properly Allege Facts to Support Diversity Jurisdiction

Plaintiff, Leopard 34M, LLC, is not a corporation—it is, obviously, an LLC. All nonincorporated entities, such as partnerships and limited liability companies, are citizens of every 

state in which any of their partners or members are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast 

SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). In order to evaluate the citizenship 

of an LLC, a complaint must plead the citizenship of all of an LLC’s members, not just its 

managing members. RFG Petro Sys., LLC v. Martin, No. 2:20-cv-00656-JLB-MRM, 2020 WL 

5230677, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2020) (citing Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022)); Silver Crown 

Invs., LLC v. Team Real Estate Mgmt., LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (“For 

purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of an LLC’s members—not its managers—

that is relevant.”) (emphasis in original). Thus, when pleading the citizenship of an LLC, there 

must be an allegation as to both the citizenship of the individual members and their identities. 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff did not make such an allegation. It alleges, “The managing member of the Plaintiff 

is Asaska Investments, LLC, a limited liability corporation incorporated in the State of Florida 

Case 1:20-cv-22518-FAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2021 Page 2 of 4
3

with its office and principal place of business in Miami-Dade County. The two managing members 

of Asaska Investments, LLC are both citizens of Florida.” The generic allegation that both 

members, without revealing their identity, is insufficient to make a prima facie case of diversity. 

Additionally, the Plaintiff’s allegations only address the managing members—not all members, as 

is required. In its response to Defendant’s motion to strike the jury demand, Plaintiff files an 

affidavit of the LLC’s corporate representative who avers that a) the sole member of Leopard 34M, 

LLC is Asaska Investments, LLC; and b) the sole members of Asaska Investments, LLC, are Albert 

Maury and Silvia Maury, both of whom are citizens of Florida. Elsewhere within the response, the 

Plaintiff requests the opportunity to amend its complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) in the 

event he Court deems it necessary to plead the above facts. Defendant argues such a couched 

request is improper—if the Plaintiff seeks affirmative relief, it must do so in the form of a motion. 

Additionally, Defendant notes, reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15’s liberal pleading standard is 

misplaced; because the amendment deadline in the Court’s scheduling order has passed, Plaintiff 

must meet the “good cause” standard of Rule 16(b). 

III. Plaintiff Elected to Proceed in Admiralty

Furthermore, Defendant argues it is irrelevant that the Plaintiff can now make a case of 

diversity jurisdiction because the Plaintiff explicitly elected to proceed in admiralty under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 9(h). “[I]f there are two grounds for jurisdiction in the same case—such as admiralty and 

diversity jurisdiction—Rule 9(h) provides that the plaintiff may elect to proceed in admiralty.” St. 

Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc., 561 F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is captioned “IN ADMIRLATY [sic]” just above the case caption and ¶ 4 

reads “This is an admiralty and maritime cause within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure . . . .” The law is clear—a Plaintiff who elects to proceed in admiralty or

Case 1:20-cv-22518-FAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2021 Page 3 of 4
4

who brings an action that a federal court only has subject-matter jurisdiction over due to its 

admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 is not entitled to a jury. Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 

(5 How.) 441, 459-60 (1847); Beiswenger Enters. Corp. v. Carletta, 86 F.3d 1032, 1037 (11th Cir. 

1996). 

IV. Conclusion

Because Plaintiff failed to allege diversity, Plaintiff could not make a showing of good 

cause that would justify allowing amended pleadings at this advanced point in the litigation, and 

Plaintiff explicitly elected to proceed in admiralty, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to 

strike Plaintiff’s jury demand.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 2

nd of April 2021.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22518-FAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2021 Page 4 of 4