Petition for Writ of Certiorari — William P. DeBoskey, Petitioner v. Goshen Mortgage, as Separate Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1, et al.

No.

FILED

SEP 1 5 2025

In The

Supreme Court of tlje Wniteti States-

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

St IPREME COURT, U.S.

William P. DeBoskey

Petitioner

v.

Goshen Mortgage, LLC. et al

Respondents

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United State Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

(Eleventh Circuit No. 24-12314; District Court No. 8:24-00325)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

William P. DeBoskey - Pro-se

27035 Old Spring Lake Rd.

Brooksville, Florida 34602

(352) 263-3384

bill27035@gmail.com

Questions Presented

1. Whether a federal court may remand a case for lack of diversity jurisdiction

based on speculation about an LLC’s citizenship without allowing

jurisdictional discovery or making factual findings.

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in affirming a remand order based on

speculation rather than evidence, imposing an impossible burden on the

removing party, and disregarding unrebutted proof of diversity.

(i)

Parties To the Proceedings

Petitioner: William P. DeBoskey

Respondent: Red Stick Acquisition, LLC as a substituted party plaintiff for

Goshen Mortgage, LLC., represented in the Eleventh Circuit by;

Samuel S. Cohen, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Critton, Luttier, Coleman

303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400

West Palm Beach | FL 33401

(ii)

Rule 29.6 Statement

Petitioner, William P. DeBoskey, is an individual and therefore no corporate

disclosure statement is required under Supreme Court Rule 29.6.

(iii)

Table of Contents

Questions Presented................................................

Parties To the Proceedings

............................................... i

..................................................................................... ii

Rule 29.6 Statement

iii

Table of Contents

iv

Table of Authorities

............................................. v

Statutes and Rules

v

Introduction

1

Opinions Below

...................................................................2

Jurisdiction

2

Statutory Provisions Involved

3

Statement Of the Case

5

Reasons For Granting Petition

7

A.

Conflict With Supreme Court Precedent

7

B.

Deepening Circuit Split on Jurisdictional Discovery

8

C.

Eleventh Circuit Ignored Its Own Precedent ................................................... 10

D.

National Importance of Diversity Jurisdiction Issue

11

E.

Ideal Vehicle for Review

12

F.

Broader Policy Imp Ecations and Amicus Support

13

Conclusion

14

Certificate of Service

16

(iv)

Table of Authorities

Cases

Aaron v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 876 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1989)................... 8

Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Marketplace, LLC, 350 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2003) ............ 9

Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc., 967 F.2d 671 (1st Cir. 1992)......................................... 8

Chaiwest Holdings, Ltd. v. Ellis, 924 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir. 1991).............................. 10

Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (1947)................................................................................ 7

Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015).................. 8,12

McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)....................... 7,11

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d

1159 (11th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................... 10

Shipley v. Helping Hands Therapy, 996 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2021)............................ 2

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)............................. 7

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976)............................ 2

United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc)............................ 10

Statutes and Rules

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)........................................................................................................... 2

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)............................................................................................ 3,12,13

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)........................................................................................................... 3

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)..................................................................................................... 2,3,5

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)..................................................................................................... 2,3,4

(v)

Supreme Court Rule 13................................................................................................. 3

Supreme Court Rule 29.6.............................................................................................. iii

(vi)

Introduction

This case presents a recurring and nationally significant question: whether

federal jurisdiction can be defeated by silence and speculation rather than evidence,

allowing limited liability companies to avoid federal court simply by concealing their

membership. In an era when LLCs dominate modern litigation yet often refuse to

disclose their members, this problem has far-reaching consequences for federal

jurisdiction, access to justice, and the integrity of the judicial system itself.

The issue arises in thousands of cases each year across the country, affecting

property owners, small businesses, and individual litigants entitled by statute to a

federal forum but denied access because of opaque LLC structures and inconsistent

judicial approaches. Other circuits require courts to base jurisdictional rulings on

evidence, permit jurisdictional discovery, or at least demand a prima facie showing

before remand. The Eleventh Circuit, by contrast, allowed remand here even though

the plaintiff LLC refused to disclose its members, the defendant produced unrebutted

evidence of diverse citizenship, and no discovery or factual findings were ordered.

That conflict among the circuits—and within the Eleventh Circuit’s own precedent—

creates widespread uncertainty for courts and litigants alike.

This case thus presents issues far beyond one homeowner or one foreclosure.

It asks whether courts may disregard the safeguards designed to prevent forum

manipulation, protect property rights, and ensure uniformity in federal jurisdiction—

questions that implicate due process, separation of powers, and the right to a fair and

(1)

impartial tribunal. Because the petition raises a systemic and recurring problem of

exceptional importance, it is likely to draw the interest of organizations concerned

with property rights, civil procedure, federal jurisdiction, and access to justice. This

case offers a clean vehicle for resolving the conflict, providing the clarity and

uniformity urgently needed in this critical area of law.

Opinions Below

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming

the district court’s remand order was entered on May 23, 2025, and is provided in the

appendix at (App. A-2). The district court’s order remanding the case to the Circuit

Court of Hernando County, Florida, was entered on July 17, 2024, and is provided in

the appendix at (App. B-2).

Jurisdiction

The court of appeals entered judgment on May 23, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

The district court remanded the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). While 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) generally bars appellate review of remand orders, this Court has held that

the bar does not apply where the remand order rests on grounds beyond those

specified in § 1447(c). See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336,

351 (1976). The Eleventh Circuit itself has likewise recognized that untimely motions

to remand do not insulate remand orders from review. Shipley v. Helping Hands

Therapy, 996 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2021).

(2)

Here, the district court’s remand rested on speculation about jurisdictional facts, not

on a valid statutory ground under § 1447(c). That places the order outside the scope

of § 1447(d)’s bar and makes appellate review proper.

This petition is timely filed within 90 days of the entry of judgment below, in

accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13.

Statutory Provisions Involved

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) provides in relevant part:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and

costs, and is between—

(1) citizens of different States.”

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides:

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought

in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court

of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such

action is pending.”

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides in relevant part:

“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject

matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of

(3)

removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

4. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides:

“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not

reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State

court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall

be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”

i

(4)

Statement Of the Case

A. Foreclosure Action and Substitution of Parties.

This case arises out of a mortgage foreclosure action in Florida state court, later

removed on diversity grounds, where the district court remanded based on

speculation rather than evidence. In May 2016, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, a Delaware

entity, filed a mortgage foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Hernando County,

Florida. In July 2018, Red Stick Acquisitions, LLC, was substituted as plaintiff and

filed an amended complaint. Red Stick based its alleged enforcement rights on

“corrective assignments” executed two years after the original complaint was filed.

Throughout the litigation, petitioner sought discovery concerning Red Stick’s

standing, its right to enforce the note, and the citizenship of its members. Red Stick

refused to disclose its members even when directly asked.

B. Removal to Federal Court and District Court Proceedings.

On February 7, 2024, petitioner removed the case to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446.

On April 9, 2024, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding the

timeliness of removal (App. B-16). Petitioner responded that the court lacked

authority to remand sua sponte absent a timely motion by the plaintiff (App. B-18).

On April 30, 2024, Red Stick filed a motion to remand, 84 days after removal, outside

the 30-day limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (App. B-86). The district court

recognized that this untimely filing waived any procedural objections to removal.

(5)

On June 21, 2024, the district court issued a second order to show cause, raising for

the first time whether complete diversity existed (App. B-27). The court directed

petitioner to provide evidence that no member of Red Stick was a citizen of Florida.

On July 5, 2024, petitioner filed a response with multiple public records and sworn

affidavits. These included affidavits of non-service at a Florida address attributed to

Red Stick, court filings from other states listing different addresses for Red Stick, and

bar association records indicating that individuals associated with the LLC resided

outside Florida (App. B-96). Red Stick submitted no contrary affidavits, declarations,

or other evidence identifying its members or establishing their citizenship. Despite

repeated opportunities, it never identified a single member or disclosed their

citizenship.

Nevertheless, on July 17, 2024, the district court granted Red Stick’s motion to

remand, concluding that diversity jurisdiction had not been established (App. B-2).

C. Court of Appeals Proceedings.

Petitioner appealed. On May 23, 2025, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand order (App. A-2). The

panel held that petitioner had not met his burden to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Petitioner timely filed a motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (App. A-

11). He argued that the district court erred by remanding without requiring

jurisdictional discovery, without holding an evidentiary hearing, and without making

(6)

findings of fact concerning LLC citizenship, despite unrebutted evidence suggesting

diversity. The motion was denied (App. A-33).

Reasons For Granting Petition

A. Conflict With Supreme Court Precedent.

The Decision Below Conflicts with This Court’s Precedent Requiring EvidenceBased Jurisdictional Findings.

This Court has long held that federal courts must determine jurisdictional facts based

on evidence, not assumptions. In McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S.

178, 189 (1936), the Court made clear that “the party who seeks the exercise of

jurisdiction in his favor ... must support [jurisdictional allegations] by competent

proof’ when they are contested. Likewise, in Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4

(1947), the Court explained that where jurisdictional facts are challenged, the district

court must resolve those facts, “by affidavits or otherwise,” before, proceeding. And in

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94—95 (1998), the Court

reaffirmed that Article III jurisdiction is a threshold requirement: “without

jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all. ”

The decision below disregards these holdings. After raising the citizenship of the

substituted LLC plaintiff sua sponte, the district court received unrebutted

documentary evidence from the removing party indicating that no member was a

Florida citizen. Yet it remanded the case without ordering jurisdictional discovery,

without holding an evidentiary hearing, and without making findings of fact. In

affirming, the Eleventh Circuit sanctioned precisely the sort of assumption-based

(7)

adjudication this Court has prohibited, allowing jurisdiction to rest on speculation

rather than proof.

B. Deepening Circuit Split on Jurisdictional Discovery.

The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision Deepens a Circuit Split on Jurisdictional

Discovery Standards.

The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling also deepens an existing division among the circuits.

Other courts of appeals recognize that when jurisdictional facts are disputed and the

district court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, the removing party need only

make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

•

First Circuit: In Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675—76

(1st Cir. 1992), the court held that without an evidentiary hearing, the

plaintiff “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction,”

meaning it must present plausible evidence that, if credited, would

establish jurisdiction.

•

Third Circuit: In Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d

99, 105-09 (3d Cir. 2015), the court acknowledged the difficulties of

proving LLC citizenship and held that reasonable allegations, made in

good faith after diligent inquiry and supported by available public

records, are sufficient at the pleading stage; if challenged, the plaintiff

is entitled to jurisdictional discovery.

•

Fifth Circuit: In Aaron v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 876 F.2d

1157, 1160-61 (5th Cir. 1989), the court required only “summary

(8)

judgment-type evidence” at the preliminary stage and emphasized that

contested jurisdictional facts cannot be resolved against the removing

party without proper findings.

•

Seventh Circuit: In Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Marketplace,

LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2003), the court vacated a judgment

where the record did not identify the members of an LLC, admonishing

that “it is not possible to litigate under the diversity jurisdiction with

details kept confidential from the judiciary.” The Seventh Circuit held

that jurisdictional assumptions are impermissible and that courts,

counsel, and parties share the duty to establish diversity through actual

evidence of membership and citizenship.

The Seventh Circuit has been especially clear on this point. In Belleville Catering Co.

the court admonished that “it is not possible to litigate under the diversity jurisdiction

with details kept confidential from the judiciary,” and vacated a judgment where LLC

citizenship had been obscured. That concern is precisely what occurred here. By

sanctioning jurisdictional assumptions, the Eleventh Circuit’s approach enables

LLCs to frustrate federal jurisdiction by withholding disclosure of their members.

Indeed, in theory, an LLC formed in one state could add members from every other

state, thereby defeating diversity jurisdiction altogether without ever producing

evidence of its structure. Such a rule not only deepens the conflict among circuits but

also creates a blueprint for abuse.

(9)

C. Eleventh Circuit Ignored Its Own Precedent.

The Eleventh Circuit Abandoned Its Own Binding Precedent on Jurisdictional

Fact-Finding.

The decision below not only deepens an existing circuit split but also conflicts with

the Eleventh Circuit’s own prior decisions requiring a prima facie showing of

jurisdiction absent an evidentiary hearing. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior-panel­

precedent rule, earlier panel decisions bind later panels unless overturned by the

court en banc or by this Court. See United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18

(11th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Yet in Chaiwest Holdings, Ltd. v. Ellis, 924 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir. 1991), the Eleventh

Circuit reversed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where the district court failed to

hold an evidentiary hearing after the defendant contested jurisdictional facts. As the

Eleventh Circuit explained:

If a district court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a

jurisdictional motion to dismiss, the court must deny the motion if the

plaintiff can present plausible evidence tending to show that the court

has jurisdiction. Chaiwest Holdings, Ltd. v. Ellis, 924 F.2d 1011, 1014

(11th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).

Likewise, when subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged, the district court has the

authority to resolve factual disputes and the discretion to devise a method for deciding

the jurisdictional issue—considering extrinsic evidence such as deposition testimony

and affidavits. Odyssey Marine Expl., Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657

F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011).

Here, the court did neither: it made no jurisdictional findings, permitted no discovery,

and remanded on speculation despite unrebutted record evidence.

(10)

The decision below ignored these controlling precedents, effectively requiring the

removing party to prove a negative — that no member of the opposing LLC shared its

citizenship — without discovery, without a hearing, and despite unrebutted evidence

indicating diversity. That standard contradicts both this Court’s requirement that

jurisdictional facts be resolved on evidence rather than assumption, see McNutt and

the Eleventh Circuit’s own jurisprudence.

This intra-circuit conflict underscores the need for review. At minimum, it warrants

vacatur and remand so the Eleventh Circuit can reconcile its decision with binding

precedent it failed to follow.

D. National Importance of Diversity Jurisdiction Issue.

The Decision Below Undermines the Uniform Application of Diversity

Jurisdiction Nationwide.

Limited liability companies, (LLC’s) are now among the most common litigants in

state and federal courts. Unlike corporations, LLCs assume the citizenship of each of

their members — information often known only to the LLC itself. This creates fertile

ground for abuse, as litigants can obscure their membership structure to frustrate

removal or manipulate forum selection.

The decision below sanctions precisely this tactic. By remanding on the assumption

of non-diversity, despite unrebutted evidence to the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit

effectively allows LLC plaintiffs to defeat federal jurisdiction simply by concealing

their membership. That result undermines uniformity in the application of diversity

(ID

jurisdiction and denies defendants access to the federal forum Congress provided in

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The problem is recurring and systemic. Courts have repeatedly recognized the

difficulty of establishing LLC citizenship at the removal stage. The Third Circuit has

observed that “[t]he citizenship of an LLC is often difficult to ascertain and may

frustrate legitimate removal, See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. It therefore held that good­

faith allegations supported by available evidence are sufficient to preserve

jurisdiction, with discovery available if challenged. The Eleventh Circuit’s contrary

approach not only encourages strategic nondisclosure by LLCs but also creates a

serious imbalance between plaintiffs and defendants in removal practice, depriving

defendants of the federal forum to which they are entitled.

E. Ideal Vehicle for Review.

This Case Presents an Ideal Vehicle for Resolving the Question.

This case squarely presents the question. The district court raised the issue of

diversity sua sponte; the removing defendant submitted multiple affidavits and

public records establishing non-Florida citizenship; the plaintiff offered no rebuttal;

and the court nevertheless remanded without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

There are no vehicle problems. The jurisdictional dispute is dispositive, the record is

complete, and the issue was preserved and resolved at every stage. This case

therefore provides an excellent opportunity for the Court to resolve the entrenched

conflict, restore consistency with its own precedents, and clarify the evidentiary

(12)

standard for establishing diversity when LLC citizenship is at issue. Given the

ubiquity of LLCs in modern litigation, resolving this question now will provide

urgently needed guidance for courts and litigants nationwide.

F. Broader Policy Implications and Amicus Support.

The Decision Below Invites Forum Manipulation by LLCs and Raises Broader

Policy Concerns.

This case carries implications far beyond a single foreclosure dispute. Limited

liability companies now dominate modern commercial litigation, yet their opaque

membership structures permit forum manipulation on a scale Congress never

intended when it enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The decision below creates a blueprint for

plaintiffs to defeat federal jurisdiction simply by concealing membership information,

leaving defendants without access to the federal courts Congress designed to ensure

impartiality and uniformity. As stated previously, an LLC could add a member in

every state and permanently defeat diversity jurisdiction—rendering federal courts

powerless to act.

The problem is both systemic and recurring. Across the country, foreclosure

defendants, small businesses, and individual litigants face similar tactics where

LLCs strategically withhold information, frustrating diversity jurisdiction and

manipulating forums to their advantage. Without guidance from this Court, lower

courts will continue issuing conflicting decisions, and litigants will face uncertainty

and unequal treatment based solely on geography.

(13)

Moreover, this issue invites amicus interest from organizations concerned with

property rights, foreclosure reform, civil procedure, and access to federal courts.

Clarifying the evidentiary standard for establishing diversity jurisdiction when LLC

citizenship is at issue would bring much-needed uniformity to a problem affecting

thousands of cases nationwide

Conclusion

The district court remanded this case without resolving disputed jurisdictional facts,

without permitting discovery, and without requiring the substituted LLC plaintiff to

disclose the citizenship of its members. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, effectively

sanctioning a rule that allows LLCs to defeat federal jurisdiction through silence and

assumption. That result conflicts with this Court’s precedents, deepens a division

among the circuits, and presents a question of exceptional importance for the uniform

application of diversity jurisdiction.

The questions presented recurs frequently in modern litigation, and only this Court

can resolve the entrenched conflict and restore uniformity. Jurisdictional

determinations must rest on evidence, not speculation. This Court’s intervention is

essential

to

protect

defendants

nationwide

from

strategic

jurisdictional

gamesmanship.

For these reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

(14)

Respectfully submitted,

WiHrSm^TDeBosk^y

Petitioner, Pro Se

27035 Old Spring Lake Road

Brooksville, Florida 34602

(352) 263-3384

Bill27035@gmail.com

(15)

Certificate of Service

I, William P. DeBoskey, do hereby certify that I have served three (3) copies of the

foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari and one (1) copy of the Appendix on each

party listed below by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, this 15th day of

September 2025.

Samuel S. Cohen, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Critton, Luttier, Coleman

303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400

West Palm Beach I FL 33401

The above documents were addressed and mailed to each party at the addresses

shown above on the date indicated.

William

Petitioner, Pro Se

27035 Old Spring Lake Road

Brooksville, Florida 34602

(352) 263-3384

Bill27035@gmail.com

Date: September 15, 2025

(16)