Alpine Bank et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
ORDER REMANDING CASE to the District Court for Garfield County, Colorado, by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/2/16. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02829-MSK
ALPINE BANK, and
MID VALLEY REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS V, LLC,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
ORDER REMANDING CASE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. The Plaintiffs, Alpine Bank and
Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC, initiated this action in the District Court for Garfield
County, Colorado. The Complaint (#5) asserts claims for breach of contract and bad faith breach
of insurance contract.1 The Defendant, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, removed
the action to this Court. The Notice of Removal (#1) cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) as the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
A civil action is removable only if the plaintiff could have originally brought the action in
federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As the party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction, the
Defendant bears the burden of establishing that the requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction
The Plaintiffs allege that they are judgment creditors of Sun Mountain Enterprises, LLC. The
Plaintiffs bring this action as assignees of Sun Mountain Enterprise’s claims against its insurer,
the Defendant, for its failure to defend and indemnify in the underlying action. In addition to
this action, the Plaintiff Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC has initiated a garnishment
action against the Defendant in state court, seeking to recover the amount of the judgment. The
Defendant removed the garnishment action to this Court, although that case has been assigned to
a different judge. Case No. 15-cv-2796.
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  court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
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). In Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century
Surety Co., 781 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2015), the Tenth Circuit held that the citizenship of a
limited liability company is determined by reference to the citizenship of each and every one of
Here, neither the Notice of Removal nor the Complaint makes any allegation as to who
the members of the Plaintiff LLC are or what their citizenship is. The Notice of Removal
alleges, in conclusory fashion, that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. But as to
the Plaintiff LLC, the Notice of Removal alleges only that the Plaintiffs are “citizens and
residents” of the State of Colorado. Similarly, the Complaint provides only that the Plaintiff
LLC is “a Colorado limited liability company in good standing with its principal place of
business located [in Colorado].” The Court finds that these allegations are insufficient to
establish complete diversity among the parties. There has been no identification of who the
members of the Plaintiff LLC are or their citizenship. Without further specificity, it is
impossible to determine whether there is complete diversity among the parties.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to establish that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The case is therefore
REMANDED to the District Court for Garfield County, Colorado. The Clerk is directed to
close this case.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016.
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?