DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.
In its Notice of Removal removing this action from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, filed July 24, 2017, Defendant Champion Mortgage Co. ("Champion") invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1]. Champion asserts that it is a registered fictitious name for Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a limited liability company whose sole members are wholly owned by a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Texas. [Id. at 2-3]. It also asserts that Plaintiff PRMD Construction Services ("PRMD") "is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in the State of Florida." [Id. at 2].
Federal courts "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). To that end, a federal court may raise jurisdictional issues on its own initiative at any stage of litigation. Id. at 506; see also Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[A] court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.").
The statute governing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, permits a defendant to remove a case brought in state court to federal court if the federal court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. When a defendant removes a case, it, as the removing party, bears the burden of proving that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002). Diversity jurisdiction requires fully diverse citizenship of all parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which is determined at the time of removal. Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. v. Lamb, 660 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2011).
As this Court has previously explained, it
Burillo Azcarraga v. J.P. Morgan (Suisse) S.A., No. 16-22046, 2017 WL 693954, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2017). Here, Champion, despite citing the correct law on this issue (albeit from the incorrect circuit), see [ECF No. 1 at 2] ("As a limited liability company, Nationstar `is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.'" (quoting Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006))), joins that regrettably long list of parties by making the blanket assertion that complete diversity exists between it and PRMD because PRMD "is a limited liability company
Considering this standard, the Notice of Removal's bare allegation regarding PRMD's citizenship is "fatally defective." Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). The Court therefore finds that Champion, as the removing party, has failed to establish that diversity of citizenship exists in this case. That said, the Court is mindful of the Eleventh Circuit's instruction that, prior to remanding a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon the failure of a removing party to properly allege diversity, a district court must allow the removing party an opportunity to cure the deficiency by granting leave to amend its notice of removal to "`unequivocally' establish diversity of citizenship." Corporate Mgmt. Advisors Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1297-98 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Armada Coal Exp., Inc. v. Interbulk, Ltd., 726 F.2d 1566, 1569 (11th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, it is