ADRE Country Square, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company
OPINION AND ORDER Remanding Case to the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/12/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02991-MSK
ADRE COUNTRY SQUARE, LLC,
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,
OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. The Plaintiff, ADRE Country
Square, LLC, commenced this case in the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County. The
Complaint (#4) asserts claims for breach of contract, common law bad faith breach of insurance
contract, and statutory bad faith under Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116. The
Defendant, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, removed the case to this Court. The
Notice of Removal (#1) cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for jurisdiction.
A civil action is removable only if the Plaintiff could have originally brought the action
in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In this case, removal is premised on diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction exists when the case involves a dispute
between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). To meet the diversity requirement, there must be complete diversity between all
plaintiffs and all defendants. In other words, no defendant can be a citizen from the same state as
any plaintiff. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Although the Tenth Circuit
has not specifically address the issue of citizenship of LLC’s, the consensus throughout the
circuits is that an LLC is deemed to be a citizen of all of the states of which its members are
citizens. See MCP Trucking, LLC v. Speedy Heavy Hauling, Inc., 2014 WL 5002116 (D.Colo.
2014) (collecting cases).
As the party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction, the Defendant bears the burden of
establishing that the requirements for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction are met. See Huffman
v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d 1072, 1079 (10th Cir. 1999). The Court is required to
remand “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Here, the Complaint does not contain any factual allegations with regard to who the
members of the Plaintiff limited liability corporation are. Similarly, the Notice of Removal does
not identify who the members of the Plaintiff LLC are, stating only that “it is reasonably
believed that [the Plaintiff] and its LLC member(s) are citizens of Colorado for diversity of
purposes.” Without allegations as to who the Plaintiff’s members are and what their citizenship
is, it is impossible to determine whether there is complete diversity between the parties. The
Defendant cannot rely on speculation about the citizenship of the LLC’s members for purposes
of establishing diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to establish complete diversity
between parties and therefore this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted
in this action. The case is REMANDED to the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krieger
Chief 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?