ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs filed the Stipulated Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 26; Motion), on October 15, 2014, requesting leave to amend their amended complaint. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion and directed the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint (Doc. 26-1) as a standalone docket entry. See Order (Doc. 30). The Second Amended Complaint for Premises Negligence (Doc. 31; Second Amended Complaint) alleges complete diversity between the parties. However, upon review, the Court finds Plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations to be inadequate. Specifically, the Court determines that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the citizenship of Defendant Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, L.L.C., d/b/a The Condado Plaza Hilton ("Posadas") are insufficient to establish Posadas's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

In the Seconded Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that Posadas "is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Juan, Puerto Rico." Second Amended Complaint at 1. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, "a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen." Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Mallory & Evans Contractors & Engineers, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011). Therefore, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited liability company, a plaintiff must allege the citizenship of each of the limited liability company's members. See Mallory & Evans, 663 F.3d at 1305; Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022. Without knowledge of the identity and citizenship of Posadas's various members, the Court is unable to determine whether complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant. See Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2010) (remanding case in which party invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction did not disclose the identity and citizenship of each member of an unincorporated entity); see also D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring plaintiff LLC to identify its members and their respective citizenship); Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 312 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2002) (instructing district court to remand action to state court where defendant partnership's jurisdictional allegations repeatedly failed to "tell us the identity and citizenship of the partners in the two entities that own [defendant partnership]"). Indeed, without such information, the Court cannot trace Posadas's members' citizenship "through however many layers of partners or members there may be." See Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); see also D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., 661 F.3d at 126-27 ("If even one of Zwirn's members is another unincorporated entity, the citizenship of each of that member's members (or partners, as the case may be) must then be considered."); Zambelli Fireworks Mfg Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010).

Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs' allegation that "upon information and belief, none of the Defendant limited liability company members are citizens of Florida and therefore are diverse to the Plaintiff," to be insufficient to allow the Court to satisfy its obligation to assure complete diversity exists before exercising jurisdiction over this action.1 Second Amended Complaint at 2. Indeed, it is well established that parties seeking to invoke a federal court's diversity jurisdiction cannot establish diversity in the negative as an affirmative identification of citizenship is necessary to assure that the adverse party is a citizen of a "state", as defined for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 See Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 324-25 (1888); D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., 661 F.3d at 125-127; Meyerson, 312 F.3d at 320-21. Consequently, Plaintiffs' allegation that none of Posadas's members are citizens of Florida is insufficient for purposes of establishing the citizenship of Posadas's members.

In light of the foregoing and "in the hope of preventing the needless expenditure of litigant and judicial resources that occurs when a case proceeds to trial in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction[,]" see Zambelli Fireworks, 592 F.3d at 419, the Court will afford Plaintiffs another opportunity to provide the Court with sufficient information to establish the citizenship of the parties and this Court's diversity jurisdiction over the instant action.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiffs shall have until November 20, 2014, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.

DONE AND ORDERED.