UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

ROTHFOS CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

H&H COFFEE INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF 

No. [1]. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is 

otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, the above-styled case is dismissed 

without prejudice. 

Federal courts 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)). As 

such, a “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any 

time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, “once a federal 

court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” 

Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 410. 

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant H&H Coffee 

Investments, LLC. See generally ECF No. [1]. The Complaint alleges that this Court has 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2 

jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. ¶ 5. However, complete diversity 

between Plaintiff and Defendant is not apparent on the face of the Complaint. The Complaint 

states, in relevant part: 

Plaintiff is a New York corporation, with its principal office in Hoboken, New 

Jersey.

Defendant is a Florida limited liability company, with its principal office in MiamiDade County, Florida. 

Id. ¶¶ 9-10. 

District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are completely 

diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “For a court to have 

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), ‘all plaintiffs must be diverse from all 

defendants.’” First Home Bank v. Net Zero LLC, No. 3:20-cv-150-J-34MCR, 2020 WL 802518, 

at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412)). “The burden of 

pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction 

is properly challenged, that party also bears the burden of proof.” Ray v. Bird & Son & Asset 

Realization Co., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975).1

“[F]or the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated business 

association or entity, such as a general or limited partnership or a limited liability company, is not 

a ‘citizen’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in its own right.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 

(citing Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987)). Rather, the 

longstanding rule 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. 

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued prior 

to October 1, 1981. 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3 

Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma 

Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)). With regard to the existence of diversity jurisdiction, “a 

limited partnership is a citizen of each state in which any of its partners, limited or general, are 

citizens.” Id. (citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-96). “Therefore, in order to sufficiently allege the 

citizenship of an unincorporated business entity, a party must list the citizenships of all the 

members of that entity.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2 (citing Rolling Greens MHP, 

L.P., 374 F.3d 1022). 

Here, the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant H&H Coffee 

Investments, LLC, because it does not identify the members of the limited liability company and 

its members’ citizenship. As explained above, “[t]o sufficiently allege the citizenships of [] 

unincorporated business entities, a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited 

liability company and all the partners of the limited partnership,” and if the party invoking the 

court’s jurisdiction fails to do so, it cannot satisfy its burden of establishing diversity of citizenship. 

Rolling Greens MHP, L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022. Accordingly, “the Court lacks sufficient information 

to satisfy the jurisdictional inquiry.” First Home Bank, 2020 WL 802518, at *2. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint that 

properly alleges the basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction by December 19, 2022. 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 12, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2022 Page 4 of 4