Cannon v. Flowers Bakery of Montgomery, LLC et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER that the defendants have until November 1, 2013, to amend the notice of removal to allege jurisdiction sufficiently, see 28 U.S.C. § 1653; otherwise this lawsuit shall be remanded to state court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES CANNON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
FLOWERS BAKERY OF
MONTGOMERY, LLC; et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv749-MHT
(WO)
OPINION AND ORDER
The
allegations
of
the
notice
of
removal
are
insufficient to invoke this court’s removal jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity of citizenship) and
1441 (removal).
To invoke removal jurisdiction based on
diversity, the notice of removal must distinctly and
affirmatively
allege
each
party’s
citizenship.
See
McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F. 2d 653, 654
(5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam).
The allegations must show
that the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from
that of each defendant.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also
2 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice
§ 8.03[5][b] at 8-16 (3d ed. 2006).
The removal notice is insufficient because it does
not fully indicate the citizenship of a party that is a
‘limited
partnership’:
Limited
Partnership,
ARAMARK
Facility
ARAMARK
identified
Services,
LLC.
Management
in
the
Services
complaint
as
purposes
of
“[F]or
diversity of citizenship, a limited partnership is a
citizen of each state in which any of its partners,
limited or general, are citizens.”
Rolling Greens MHP,
L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021
(11th Cir. 2004) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494
U.S. 185, 195-6 (1990)).
The notice must therefore
allege the citizenship of all partners of the limited
partnership.
Id. at 1022.
And if any of the partners,
general or limited, are themselves entities, the notice
must also allege the citizenship of each and every entity
based on the nature of that entity.
See id.;
Mullins v.
TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir. 2009);
2
Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d
894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
The removal notice indicates that the general partner
of ARAMARK Management Services Limited Partnership is
ARAMARK SMMS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
“[L]ike
a
limited
partnership,
a
limited
liability
company is a citizen of any state of which a member of
Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at
the company is a citizen.”
1022.
The
removal
notice
does
not
indicate
the
citizenship of the members of ARAMARK SMMS LLC.
***
It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court that the defendants have until November 1,
2013,
to
amend
jurisdiction
the
notice
sufficiently,
of
see
removal
28
U.S.C.
to
§
allege
1653;
otherwise this lawsuit shall be remanded to state court.
DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?