UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION AMY KUNCE, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:25-cv-533-PGB-RMN

SPM OF ALABAMA, LLC, Defendant. / ORDER This cause comes before the Court on jurisdictional review. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Amy Kunce (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action in state court on February 18, 2025. (Doc. 1-1). On March 26, 2025, Defendant SPM of Alabama, LLC (“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court under the basis of diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1 (the “Notice of Removal”));

. Regarding the parties’ citizenship, the Notice of Removal states that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and that Defendant is a citizen of Alabama. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Additionally, the

Notice of Removal states that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id.). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction and must “zealously insure [sic] that jurisdiction exists” in every case. Smith v. GTE Corp.,

, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001); see Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,

(11th Cir. 1999) (stating that a district court “is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking”). Thus, in a diversity action, the Court must ensure that the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000 and that the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse. See

; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). Complete diversity requires that the citizenship of every plaintiff be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche,

(2005). Thus, to achieve “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is a citizen. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.,

(11th Cir. 2004). As such, to sufficiently allege a limited liability company’s citizenship, a party must list the citizenship of all the members of that entity. See, e.g.,

III. DISCUSSION Simply put, Defendant fails to establish complete diversity to support its Notice of Removal. (See Doc. 1). Defendant, SPM of Alabama, LLC, is a limited liability company. (Id. at p. 2). However, nowhere in the Complaint or Notice of Removal do the parties affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each of the

members of the aforementioned limited liability company. (See Docs. 1, 1-1). IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Defendant SPM of Alabama, LLC is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the state of citizenship of each of its members on or before April 8, 2025. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 1, 2025.

Gone PAUL G. UNITED STATES®@ISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties