UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JONATHON BOSCO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-cv-12453

FLEX-N-GATE, ROYAL OAK, LLC,

Defendant.

/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff Jonathon Bosco initiated this action in federal court

against Defendant Flex-N-Gate, Royal Oak, LLC (“Flex-N-Gate”) invoking the court’s

subject matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On

July 20, 2015, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff timely responded. (Dkt. # 4.)

Plaintiff also moved to file an amended complaint. (Id.)

 “Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction and have only the power that

is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress

pursuant thereto.” Marine Equip. Mgmt. Co. v. United States, 4 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir.

1993). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the

burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Title 28 U.S.C. §

1332 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28

2:15-cv-12453-RHC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 40
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the two requirements for diversity

jurisdiction are (1) that the matter in controversy exceed $75,000.00, and (2) that

complete diversity exist between the disputing parties. 

In the instant case, Defendant is a limited liability company. “[A] limited liability

company has the citizenship of each of its members.” Delay v. Rosenthal Collins

Group, LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). Therefore, in order to determine

Defendant’s citizenship and, accordingly, whether the court has jurisdiction over this

matter, “the court needs to know the citizenship of each member of the company. And

because a member of a limited liability company may itself have multiple

members—and thus may itself have multiple citizenships—the federal court needs to

know the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.” Id.

The complaint does not allege the citizenship of Defendant’s members. The

court, therefore, ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause

in which he describes his efforts to identify Defendant’s members and their citizenship. 

Plaintiff was able to identify one member, SRK Wilshire Investors, Inc., which had its

address listed as 502 East Anthony Drive, Urbana, Illinois 31802 in a filing with the

Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth in 2004. (Dkt. # 4-2, Pg. ID 23.) 

“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by

which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal

place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff has not identified SRK Wilshire

Investors’ state of incorporation or its principal place of business; rather, Plaintiff has

identified only an address at which service of process may be mailed. (Dkt. # 4, Pg. ID

2

2:15-cv-12453-RHC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 41
23.) The court, therefore, is unable to determine the citizenship of SRK Wilshire

Investors and, accordingly, the citizenship of Defendant.

Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to establish that SRK Wilshire Investors is the sole

member of Defendant. Plaintiff contends that it has performed due diligence in

attempting to identify Defendant’s citizenship and that, “based on information and belief,

there are no members that affect this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.” (Dkt. # 4, Pg. ID

14.) Plaintiff’s response, however, does not persuasively demonstrate that SRK

Wilshire Investors is Defendant’s only member. Plaintiff identified SRK Wilshire

Investors from a filing with the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth. 

Plaintiff’s inquiries with the Delaware Division of Corporations, its internet searches, and

its searches on LexisNexis Comprehensive Search revealed no members, not even

SRK Wilshire Investors. (Dkt. # 4, Pg. ID 14.) These latter searches do not reflect

Defendant’s membership on their face, as a limited liability company must have at least

one member. The Michigan filing also did not purport to be a comprehensive list of

members; it merely stated the name and address of Defendant’s agent appointed for

service of process. (Dkt. # 4-2, Pg. ID 23.) Plaintiff ultimately has provided the court

with no basis for concluding that SRK Wilshire Investors is Defnedant’s only member.

Plaintiff insists that he should be permitted to conduct discovery for the purpose

of determining discovery because Defendant’s information is not readily available to the

public. It is within a district court’s discretion to grant “jurisdictional discovery” for the

limited purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction. See Patterson v. Dietze, Inc.,

764 F.2d 1145, 1148 (5th Cir. 1985) (“[J]urisdictional discovery is within the trial court’s

discretion and will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are unusual circumstances

3

2:15-cv-12453-RHC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 42
showing a clear abuse.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); A.O. Smith Corp. v. United

States, 774 F.3d 359, 369 (6th Cir. 2014) (stating that the Sixth Circuit review for abuse

of discretion a claim that a case was dismissed prematurely because jurisdictional

discovery should have been afforded”). However, here, the court finds that Plaintiff is

not entitled to jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff has not diligently attempted to

carry its burden of establishing jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff has not asked Defendant for

information related to its members or its citizenship. Pursuant to Eastern District of

Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a), a party must seek concurrence before filing a motion with

the court. While Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery is not fashioned as a

motion, the court finds that an order compelling jurisdictional discovery is unwarranted

where Plaintiff has not sought to obtain the requested information from Defendant

through non-judicial means. Second, Plaintiff has not attempted to plead the state of

incorporation or the principal place of business of the one member of Defendant that

Plaintiff has identified. Under these circumstances, the court will not subject Defendant

to the burdens of discovery.1

Plaintiff also moves to file an amended complaint which attempts to allege

diversity jurisdiction by including the statement, “[b]ased on information and belief, there

are no members of Defendant limited liability company that would remove effect this

Court’s diversity jurisdiction [sic].” (Dkt. # 4-3, Pg. ID 34.) The proposed amended

1

The court further notes that Plaintiff should have been particularly cognizant of

its obligation to allege Defendant’s citizenship given that Plaintiff is a Michigan citizen

and Defendant’s name includes a major Michigan city (“Royal Oak”), Defendant

operates in Michigan, and one of the two addresses listed on its website (which is

referenced in Plaintiff’s response) is located in Warren Michigan. See Flex-N-Gate

Debarments, http://www.flex-n-gate.com/Departments.html#ContactUs. (Dkt. # 4, Pg.

ID 14.)

4

2:15-cv-12453-RHC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 43
complaint does not cure the jurisdictional defects discussed above and will, therefore,

be denied. 

In sum, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before July 20, 2015 why

this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. # 3.), and 

Plaintiff has not established that the court has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is

DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 8, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 8, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\15-12453.BOSCO.dismisslackofjurisdiction.dmi.wpd

5

2:15-cv-12453-RHC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 44