Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pervenia Brown sued Fitness International LLC, doing business as LA Fitness and Esporta Fitness, asserting personal-injury tort claims, specifically negligence. Her complaint did not identify a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Because federal courts must independently confirm their jurisdiction, the magistrate judge reviewed whether Brown’s allegations supported either federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that Brown had not established federal-question jurisdiction. Her complaint asserted only state-law negligence claims, did not allege that federal law created those claims, and did not necessarily raise a substantial and actually disputed federal question.
The court also found Brown’s diversity allegations insufficient. Alleging that Brown was a Texas resident did not establish her domicile, and alleging that Fitness International was headquartered in California and operated in Texas did not identify the citizenship of every member of the LLC. The court did not dismiss the case; it ordered Brown to respond by September 14, 2026, and attempt to cure the jurisdictional defects, warning that failure to establish the necessary facts would result in a recommendation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Key Takeaways
- A complaint asserting only state-law negligence claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction absent a qualifying federal issue.
- An individual’s residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity purposes; citizenship turns on domicile.
- A party invoking diversity jurisdiction in a case involving an LLC must specifically allege the citizenship of every LLC member.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that parties invoking federal jurisdiction must plead jurisdictional facts, not merely addresses, residences, headquarters, or places of operation. The distinction is especially important for LLCs, whose citizenship follows every member rather than the entity’s headquarters or state of organization.
The ruling is a notice of deficiency and an opportunity to amend the jurisdictional showing, not a final dismissal or adjudication of Brown’s negligence claims.