OPINION AND ORDER 1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the Complaint filed on April 18, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff CMG Surety, LLC brings this unjust enrichment suit against Defendant Ronald R. Tiller because, in a previous litigation, CMG had paid Tiller's portion of the settlement and his attorney's fees. (Id.). CMG cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at ¶ 4).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are obligated to inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). In an action filed directly in federal court, a plaintiff bears the burden of adequately pleading, and ultimately proving jurisdiction. See King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir. 2007). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over a matter if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, the diversity of citizenship prong poses a jurisdictional hurdle.
A limited liability company ("LLC"), like CMG, is a citizen of every state in which one of its members is located. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004); see also McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating that an individual is a citizen where he is domiciled, not necessarily where he is a resident). Each member of the LLC must be diverse from the plaintiff. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). In the Complaint, CMG alleges that it is a foreign LLC with its principal place of business in Naples, Florida. But it fails to allege where it members are domiciled. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 2). Without such allegations, CMG has not adequately pleaded diversity of citizenship. The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, it is now
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is