ORDER

WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.

Before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. (Doe. 9.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DISMISSED.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on February 3, 2015. (Doe. 1.) On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff perfected service on Defendant Aslan Ventures, LLC by serving its manager, Defendant Gregory G. Evans. (Doe. 7.) At the same time, Plaintiff personally served Defendant Evans. (Doe. 8.) After Defendants failed to answer the complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 31, 2015, requesting both an entry of default and the entry of a default judgment against Defendants. As of the date of this order, Defendants have failed to make an appearance in this case.

"Prior to obtaining a default judgment under Rule 55(b) (2), there must be an entry of default as provided by Rule 55(a)." 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998); see also Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981).1 The purpose of first requiring an entry of default is to afford the defendant an opportunity to have the default set aside, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), prior to the entry of a default judgment.2 Allowing a party to obtain both the entry of default and default judgment in a single motion would defeat that purpose. As the entry of default is a necessary precursor to filing a motion for default judgment, Plaintiff's motion is not properly before the Court at this time. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is DISMISSED.

Before seeking default, Plaintiff should be aware that there is a more pressing problem with this case. While reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the Court discovered that the jurisdictional allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient to establish complete diversity between the parties. The party invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of adequately pleading complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Ray v. Bird & Son& Asset Realization Co., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975)3 ("The burden of pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction is properly challenged, that party also bears the burden of proof."). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company ('LLC") is a citizen of every state in which any of its members are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th Cir. 2004) . The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has been explicit in addressing the proper method to allege sufficiently the citizenship of an LLC: "a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company." Id. at 1022.

In this case, Plaintiff's complaint does not include a list of the individual members, along with their citizenship, of Defendant Asian Ventures, LLC. Rather, the complaint simply states that "Plaintiff is a Georgia Corporation and Defendants are citizens and residents of the State of Kentucky." (Doc. 1 ¶ 4.) Defendants rely on these allegations to advance the general conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction because "the parties to this action are diverse." (Id.)

However, the general allegation that Defendants are citizens of Kentucky is insufficient for Defendants to carry their burden of establishing complete diversity between the parties. See Ray, 519 F.2d at 1082. Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint within fourteen days from the date of this order. As noted above, the amended complaint must properly allege diversity in this case by including the names and citizenships of each member of Defendant Asian Ventures, LLC, thus allowing the Court to confirm that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain this case. Plaintiff may seek to obtain default and default judgment against Defendants after curing this jurisdictional defect.

SO ORDERED.