UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SHARERH FAYEZ ALANAZI, Plaintiff, V. Case No: 6:19-cv-2230-Orl-28LRH AVCO CORPORATION, PRECISION AIRMOTIVE, LLC, VOLARE CARBURETORS, LLC, TEMPEST PLUS MARKETING GROUP, LLC, AERO ACCESSORIES, INC., FORWARD TECHNOLOGIES INDUSTRIES, INC., SYNERGY SYSTEMS, INC., CASHMERE MOLDING, INC., and MARVEL SCHEBLER AIRCRAFT CARBURETORS, LLC, Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, Sharerh Fayes Alanazi, filed this action in state court against nine Defendants: Avco Corporation; Precision Airmotive, LLC; Volare Carburetors, LLC: Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors, LLC; Tempest Plus Marketing Group, LLC; Aero Accessories, Inc.; Forward Technologies Industries, Inc.; Synergy Systems, Inc.; and Cashmere Molding, Inc. Defendant Forward Technologies removed the case to this Court, asserting diversity of citizenship under

as the basis for the □□□□□□□ subject-matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1). On sua sponte review of the Notice of Removal and the record, however, the Court finds that Forward Technologies has failed to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. Federal courts have not only “the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire

into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgeral v. Seaboard Sys. R.R.,

(11th Cir. 1985). Here, Forward Technologie has sufficiently alleged its own citizenship and that of three of the four other incorporate Defendants—Avco Corporation; Synergy Systems, Inc.; and Cashmere Molding, Inc. Bt Forward Technologies’ citizenship allegations are not sufficient with regard to Plaintiff, Aer Accessories, Inc., or any of the four LLC Defendants. First, with regard to Plaintiff, Forward Technologies alleges merely that “Plaintiff i believed to be a resident and citizen of Florida.” (Notice of Removal J 2). But such ; “believed to be” allegation is not sufficient. See, e.g., Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v Morris Hardwick Schneider, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01375-ELR,

, at *2 (N.D Ga. Aug. 27, 2018) (‘[A]lleging . . . ‘upon information and belief is insufficient to establist a party’s citizenship, and thus, insufficient to establish diversity.”); Wilkins v. Stapleton Case No. 6:17-cv-1342-Orl-37GJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017 (“DO NOT allege jurisdictional facts ‘on information and belief.” (emphasis in original)) Second, as to the four LLC Defendants, Forward Technologies relies on “negative pleading” of citizenship, asserting that none of the members of these LLCs is a citizen □□ Florida. (Notice of Removal {J 4-7). But pleading that none of the members is a citizen of Florida is not sufficient to establish diversity; affirmative pleading of citizenship is required. See Cameron v. Hodges,

(1888) (“That the Defendant Hodges | was a citizen of Arkansas, in connection with the fact that none of the complainants were citizens of that state, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction .. . .”); D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra,

(1st Cir. 2011) (“Cameron remains the governing precedent.”). The citizenship of each member of each LLC must be alleged.

See Adkins v. Family Dollar Stores of Fla. LLC, No. 3:18-cv-1257-J-34PDB, 2018 W 9312024, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2018) (citing Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCI Holdings L.L.C.,

(11th Cir. 2004)). Finally, Forward Technologies alleges that “Aero Accessories, Inc. is believed t have been a North Carolina corporation with its principal location in Gibsonville, □□□□□ Carolina.” (Notice of Removal J 8). This “believed to have been’ allegation is insufficient and, as it did for the LLCs, Forward Technologies then alleges that “this entity’ has nc members who are citizens of Florida. (id.). In sum, the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal do not suppor diversity jurisdiction. But “[dJefective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upor terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”

. Accordingly, itis ORDERED tha no later than Friday, December 13, 2019, Forward Technologies shall file an amendec notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, oy te C. J. sited States District Jud ge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties