UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-21607-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

T & O INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff, v.

RODRIGUEZ-PADRON ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, ECF No. [1]. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is “a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Florida” and that Plaintiff is not represented by counsel. Id. ¶ 1; see also id. at 7 (indicating that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se). A limited liability company must be represented by counsel and cannot proceed pro se. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1985). Separately, the Court finds that the basis for its subject matter jurisdiction is not adequately pleaded. “[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet,

(11th Cir. 2005). It should do so “at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,

(11th Cir. 1999). Once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, “the court is powerless to continue.” Bochese,

; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”). Case No. 23-cv-21607-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Plaintiff pleads Federal Question jurisdiction,

, but asserts only state law claims, including negligence and breach of contract, among others. ECF No. [1] ff 5, 24-29. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 1, 2023.

BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record