Detroit Free Press Inc v. Slocumb Law Firm, LLC, et al
ORDER directing that the defendants show cause, if any there be, in writing by no later than November 20, 2012, as to why this cause should not be remanded to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama, as further set out; further ORDERED that, if defe ndants believe that they can overcome the prohibition of subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants are allowed until November 20, 2012, to amend the notice of removal to allege jurisdiction sufficiently, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/13/12. (scn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
DETROIT FREE PRESS, INC.,
SLOCUMB LAW FIRM, LLC, and
MICHAEL W. SLOCUMB, an
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
insufficient to invoke this court's removal jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity of citizenship) and
Although 28 U.S.C. §
1441 provides for removal based
upon diversity of citizenship, subsection (b) of § 1441
precludes removal where one or more of the defendants is
a citizen of the State wherein the action is brought.
Subsection (b) specifically provides that any action other
than one based on federal-question jurisdiction "shall be
removable only if none of the parties in interest properly
joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State
in which such action is brought."
Because it appears that
defendants Slocumb Law Firm, LLC, and Michael W. Slocumb
may be citizens of Alabama and because this lawsuit was
initiated in an Alabama court, it further appears that
subsection (b) precludes removal to this federal court.
Furthermore, to invoke removal jurisdiction based on
diversity, the notice of removal must distinctly and
affirmatively allege each party's citizenship.
v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F. 2d 653, 654 (5th Cir.
1975) (per curiam).1
The allegations must show that the
citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that of
Moore, et al.,
28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also 2 James Wm.
Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 8.03[b] at
1. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions
of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the
close of business on September 30, 1981.
8-10 (3d ed. 1998).
The notice of removal fails to meet
The notice gives the "residence" rather
than the "citizenship" of defendant Michael W. Slocumb.
An allegation that a party is a "resident" of a State is
not sufficient to establish that a party is a "citizen" of
Delome v. Union Barge Line Co., 444 F.2d 225,
233 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 995, 92 S.Ct. 534
The removal notice is also insufficient because it
does not indicate the citizenship of a party that is a
‘limited liability company’: defendant Slocumb Law Firm,
“[L]ike a limited partnership, 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
citizenships of all the members of the limited liability
(And if the entity consists of several
entities, the complaint must reflect the citizenship, or
citizenships, of each and every entity based on the nature
of that entity.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants show
cause, if any there be, in writing by no later than
November 20, 2012, as to why this cause should not be
remanded to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama
because subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 precludes
removal where one or more of the defendants is a citizen
of the State wherein the action is brought.
subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants are allowed
until November 20, 2012, to amend the notice of removal to
otherwise this case shall be remanded to the Circuit Court
of Lee County, Alabama.
DONE, this the 13th day of November, 2012.
/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?