Shouldn't somebody on somebody's team have picked this up a wee bit earlier?
After Thermoset filed its notice of appeal, this Court noticed that the
pleadings below did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of RSGO, as is required
to invoke the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Specifically, because “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which
a member of the company is a citizen,” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast
SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), the
pleadings were required (but failed) to provide the citizenship of each member of
RSGO. Thus, we inquired of the parties how they thought this defect could and
should be cured. See Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee
Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1304 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“We are obligated to
raise concerns about the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”).
From the answers to the jurisdictional question, it became apparent that RSGO was
in fact not diverse at the time of removal. One of its members was—like
Thermoset—a Florida citizen.