UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-21108-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

ARIANNA PRIETO, an individual, and GERARDO RAMIREZ, her spouse,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPITAL BRANDS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and NUTRIBULLET, LCC, a California Limited Liability Company,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of Plaintiffs Arianna Prieto and Gerardo Ramirez’s Complaint, ECF No. [1]. 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.,

(11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton,

(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,

(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.,

. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases in which the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

. “For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

(a), ‘all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.’” First Home Bank v. Net Zero LLC, No. 3:20-cv-150-J-34MCR,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala.,

)). “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.,

(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

(a) in its own right.” First Home Bank,

, at *2 (citing Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,

(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. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC,

(11th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma

Assocs.,

(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.”

(citing Carden,

). “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,

, at *2 (citing Rolling Greens MHP, L.P.,

). Further, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(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. foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business[.]”

(c)(1). On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants Capital Brands, LLC and Nutribullet, LLC. ECF No. [1]. The Complaint states “[t]his action is within the subject-

matter jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to

because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of costs, and there is complete diversity between the parties.” ECF No. [1] ¶ 6. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Arianna Prieto “is a citizen of the United States, [and] a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida,” and that Plaintiff Gerardo Ramirez “is a citizen of the United States, [and] a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.”

. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants Nutribullet, LLC and Capital Brands, LLC are California limited liability companies whose principal places of business are both located at 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90025.

. In addition, the Complaint alleges that Nutribullet, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital Brands, LLC, and that Capital Brands, LLC is the parent company of Nutribullet, LLC.

Those

allegations are insufficient to plead proper subject matter jurisdiction to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. First, to properly allege citizenship of an individual, “[r]esidence alone is not enough.” Travaglio v. Am. Express Co.,

(11th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. . . . And domicile requires both residence in a state and ‘an intention to remain there indefinitely[.]”

(quoting McCormick v. Aderholt,

(11th Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, the Complaint does not adequately allege the citizenship of Plaintiffs. Second, as the Eleventh Circuit has held on numerous occasions, “[f]or the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction, a limited Case No. 23-cv-21108-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Flintlock Constr. Servs. v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC,

(11th Cir. 2013). Thus, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of an LLC, “a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.” Mallory & Evans Contrs. & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ.,

(11th Cir. 2011). Here, the Complaint does not allege the citizenships of all the members of either of the Defendants or indicate that each Defendant has only one member. As a result, the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction in this case under

(a). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 22, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record