BFS Group LLC v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
BFS Group LLC, 	Case No. 3:26-cv-1145
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
Celina Mutual Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants.
On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff BFS Group LLC invoked this Court’s diversity jurisdiction when
filing its Complaint against Defendant Celina Mutual Insurance Company. (Doc. No. 1 at 2; Doc.
No. 1-3 at 1). Then, on July 21, 2026, Plaintiff BFS Group LLC amended its complaint to assert
claims against not just Defendant Celina Mutual Insurance Company, but also Defendant Install and
Service Center, LLC.1 (Doc. No. 6). In doing so, Plaintiff maintains this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the case on the basis of diversity. (Id. at 2).
For a district court to have original diversity jurisdiction over a case, complete diversity must
exist between the parties to the dispute. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). That is, the dispute must be between
citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As Plaintiff implicitly recognizes, (Doc. No. 6 at
1 Contrary to Defendant Install and Service Center, LLC’s assertion in its opposition brief to the
pending motion to consolidate, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was not filed “in contravention of
Fed. Civ. R. 15(a).” (Doc. No. 11 at 2 n.2). Under Rule 15(a), “[a] party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course no later than . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff used its one opportunity to amend as a matter of course when it filed
the subject Amended Complaint 21 days after Defendant Celina Mutual Insurance Company filed its
Answer on June 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 4).
Case: 3:26-cv-01145-JJH Doc #: 20 Filed: 10/14/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
1-2), “a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members.” Delay v. Rosenthal
Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). “When diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a
case in which a limited liability company is a party, the court needs to know the citizenship of each
member of the company. And because a member of a limited liability company may itself have
multiple members—and thus may itself have multiple citizenships—the federal court needs to know
the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.” Id.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Install and Service Center, LLC:
is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Milford, Ohio.
Upon information and belief, none of ISC’s members are citizens of Texas or
Delaware. Upon information and belief, ISC is a citizen of Ohio.
(Doc. No. 6 at 2). But an LLC’s principal place of business is not relevant to its citizenship, and
Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions regarding the LLC’s members and citizenship are insufficient.
Instead, Plaintiff must identify Defendants members and, if applicable, sub-members and state
sufficient factual allegations from which I can verify their citizenship. Without this information, I
cannot determine Defendant Install and Service Center, LLC’s citizenship and conclude this Court
has diversity jurisdiction over this case.
To avoid dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff shall
supplement the Complaint by filing an affidavit of jurisdiction no later than November 20, 2026.
See 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.”). In this affidavit, Plaintiff must:
a. 	Identify each member and sub-member of Defendant Install and Service Center,
LLC, which “must be traced through however many layers of partners or members
there may be,” Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir.
2002); and
Case: 3:26-cv-01145-JJH Doc #: 20 Filed: 10/14/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
b. 	State sufficient factual allegations for me to determine the citizenship of every
member and sub-member (e.g., the domicile of individuals, the place of
incorporation and principal place of business of corporations).
While I acknowledge that it remains Plaintiff’s burden to establish this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction was properly invoked, I remind counsel for Defendant Install and Service Center, LLC
of this Court’s expectation of collaboration and urge them to actively participate in acquiring the
relevant facts required to determine its citizenship so jurisdiction can be verified as soon as possible.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-01145-JJH Doc #: 20 Filed: 10/14/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>