Lovers Industrial USA, LLC v. Lovers Industrial Corporation B.V.
1:24-cv-23220
| S.D. Fla. | Apr 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Lovers Industrial USA, LLC, a Florida LLC owned by Cindy and Oswald van der Dijs (dual U.S./Dutch citizens), sued Defendant, Lovers Industrial Corporation B.V., a Curacao corporation, over a licensing agreement.
- Plaintiff filed in Florida state court; Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity/alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing no complete diversity because both LLC members were U.S. citizens domiciled in the Netherlands, making them “stateless” for diversity purposes.
- Defendant argued that the Plaintiff members remained domiciled in Florida based on various objective ties and records, seeking to retain the case in federal court.
- The central factual dispute was whether Cindy and Oswald were domiciled in Florida or the Netherlands at the relevant time.
- The court found the most persuasive evidence to be their Dutch residency records and lease, supporting their intent to reside in the Netherlands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domicile of Plaintiff's members | Cindy/Oswald are domiciled in Netherlands | Cindy/Oswald remain domiciled in Florida | Domicile is in Netherlands |
| Alienage/statelessness under §1332 | Dual citizens domiciled abroad are “stateless” | Diversity exists because of U.S. citizenship ties | Cindy/Oswald are stateless; destroys jurisdiction |
| Burden of establishing jurisdiction | Defendant failed to prove proper federal jurisdiction | Evidence shows ties to Florida, not definite intent to remain abroad | Defendant did not meet burden; remand required |
| Weight of objective evidence vs. statements | Dutch residency/lease outweighs social media, old docs | Business, licenses, and social media indicate Florida ties | Dutch official records prevail over other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (removal is proper only if federal court could have exercised original jurisdiction)
- Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330 (U.S. citizens domiciled abroad are 'stateless' and do not provide diversity)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonso-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. citizens domiciled abroad are not proper parties for diversity)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (LLC’s citizenship is based on members’ citizenship)
- Travaglio v. American Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (Domicile requires residence plus intent to remain)