ORDER
KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This action is before the Court sua sponte on review of its subject matter jurisdiction.1 The Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint (Doc. 1) with the Court, alleging diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the sole basis for jurisdiction.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .").
When a plaintiff files suit in federal court, [the plaintiff] must allege facts that, if true, show federal subject matter jurisdiction over her case exists. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Those allegations, when federal jurisdiction is invoked based upon diversity, must include the citizenship of each party, so that the court is satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant."). Without such allegations, district courts are constitutionally obligated to dismiss the action altogether if the plaintiff does not cure the deficiency. Stanley v. C.I.A., 639 F.2d 1146, 1159 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981); see also DiMaio v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Where dismissal can be based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the court should dismiss on only the jurisdictional grounds." (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is, if a complaint's factual allegations do not assure the court it has subject matter jurisdiction, then the court is without power to do anything in the case. See Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1331, n.6 (11th Cir. 2001) ("`[A district] court must dismiss a case without ever reaching the merits if it concludes that it has no jurisdiction.'" (quoting Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993))); see also Belleri v. United States, 712 F.3d 543, 547 (11th Cir. 2013) ("We may not consider the merits of [a] complaint unless and until we are assured of our subject matter jurisdiction.").
Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (footnote omitted). See also, e.g., Ray v. Bird & Son & Asset Realization Co., Inc., 519 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The burden of pleading diversity of citizenship is upon the party invoking federal jurisdiction . . ." (citing Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)).3
The Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts demonstrating their own citizenship, as each Plaintiff, a "foreign corporate entity," has alleged "every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); (Doc. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 4-5). As such, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff Univalor Trust, SA is deemed a citizen of Switzerland,4 and Plaintiff Forvest Financial Services Corporation is deemed a citizen of Canada.
The Plaintiffs have also alleged that the natural person Defendant, Chester F. English, III, is a "citizen" of New Jersey (Doc. 1 at 4, ¶ 11) and have thus alleged sufficient facts to establish his citizenship. See, e.g., Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged . . . to establish diversity for a natural person." (emphasis added)).5
However, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing the citizenships of the five limited liability company (LLC) Defendants. The Plaintiffs have treated the LLC Defendants like corporations for purposes of diversity, alleging the states in which they were formed and where their principal places of business are located. This is not acceptable, however. The general rule for diversity is "that the citizenship of an artificial, unincorporated entity generally depends on the citizenship of all the members composing the organization." Rolling Greens, MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)). For purposes of assessing diversity of citizenship, "a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen." Id. at 1022. Accord Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Therefore, to sufficiently allege the citizenship of an LLC, "a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company . . ." Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022. This "can require tracing through several layers." BouMatic, LLC v. Idento Operations, BV, 759 F.3d 790, 791 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 1998) (citizenship of an LLC depends on citizenship of its members, traced through as many levels as necessary to reach corporations or natural persons)). See also Azzo v. Jetro Rest. Depot, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-324-J-34JRK, 2011 WL 1357557, at *2 n.2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2011) (in pleading the citizenships of the members, "each member's citizenship must [also] be properly alleged, be it an individual, corporation, LLC, or other entity").
"Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. "[L]eave to amend should be freely granted when necessary to cure a failure to allege jurisdiction properly." Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 n.1 (11th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs hereby ORDERED to file and serve, no later than Monday, August 31, 2015, an amended complaint that sufficiently alleges the citizenships of the LLC Defendants for purposes of diversity under § 1332(a). The failure to timely do so may result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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."). The amended complaint, if filed, shall become the operative complaint in this action.6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) shall govern the time for responsive pleadings to the amended complaint.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not filed disclosure statement in accordance with S.D. Ala. CivLR 7.17and (for "nongovernmental corporate" parties) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. The Plaintiffs are ORDERED to do so no later than Monday, August 31, 2015.
DONE and ORDERED.8
