SWM International, LLC v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH et al

Filing 35

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/10/2022. ORDERED that, on or before January 20, 2022, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (sphil, )

Case 1:21-cv-02315-PAB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 21-cv-02315-PAB

SWM International, LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,
DYNAENERGETICS US, Inc.,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on the Complaint [Docket No. 1] filed
by plaintiff on August 26, 2021. Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 14.
In every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy
itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. See
Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & Cty. of Denver , 628 F.2d
1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction ex ists, a court may
not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Gr. Brit. PLC, 427 F.3d
1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on
their own, regardless of parties’ apparent acquiescence. First, it is the Court’s duty to
do so. Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). Second,

Case 1:21-cv-02315-PAB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5

regarding subject matter jurisdiction, “the consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles
of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the requirement by failing to
challenge jurisdiction.” Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.
694, 702 (1982) (citations omitted). Finally, delay in addressing the issue only
compounds the problem if, despite much time and expense having been dedicated to
the case, a lack of jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo.
July 28, 2009).
“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such
jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220,
1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 14. Pursuant to that section, “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 . . . citizens of
different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The facts as presently alleged are insufficient to
establish the citizenship of plaintiff and defendant DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff is a “Delaware limited liability company” with
its headquarters in Texas. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 9. The citizenship of a limited liability
company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. See Siloam Springs
Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]n
determining the citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity,
federal courts must include all the entities’ members.”). Plaintiff has neither identified

2

Case 1:21-cv-02315-PAB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5

its members nor provided sufficient information for the Court to determine its
citizenship. Rather, plaintiff’s statement that “[plaintiff] is a citizen of Delaware and
Texas,” Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 14, is a conclusory allegation that is insufficient for the
Court to determine plaintiff’s citizenship. See Den 8888, LLC v. Navajo Express, Inc.,
No. 21-cv-00321-STV, 2021 WL 463623, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2021); U.S. Advisor,
LLC v. Berkshire Prop. Advisors, LLC, No. 09-cv-00697-PAB-CBS, 2009 WL 2055206,
at *2 (D. Colo. July 10, 2009) (citing Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347
(7th Cir. 2006)); Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., 618 F. App’x 765, 768 (5th Cir.
2015) (unpublished) (“[W]e have observed that the appropriate tests for citizenship
involve tracing [entities’] citizenships down the various organizational layers where
necessary.” (internal citation omitted)); Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v.
Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2010) (remanding case in which party
invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction did not disclose the identity and citizenship of
each member of an unincorporated entity); Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585
F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009) (“W hen diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a case in
which a limited liability company is a party, the court needs to know the citizenship of
each member of the company. And because a member of a limited liability company
may itself have multiple members – and thus may itself have multiple citizenships – the
federal court needs to know the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.”); Rolling
Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir.
2004) (“[A] party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability
company.”); Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Fennell, 2015 WL 4477120, at *2

3

Case 1:21-cv-02315-PAB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5

(S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (collecting New York district court decisions holding that a
limited liability company must “plead facts establishing their citizenship
including, . . . the identity and citizenship of their members” in order to invoke diversity
jurisdiction).
Plaintiff also alleges defendant DynaEnergetics GmbH is a citizen of Germany,
stating that it is organized under the laws of Germany and has its principal place of
business in Germany. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶¶ 10, 14. Plaintiff, however, has not
provided any information as to whether a GmbH is comparable to a corporation or a
limited liability company for diversity purposes.1 See Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
v. Dacon Logistics, LLC, 2013 WL 5929816, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 4, 2013) (finding
allegations to be insufficient where plaintiff failed to specify whether foreign private
limited company was “structured or organized as an equivalent to either a corporation
or a limited liability company under United States law”); SJ Prop. Suites v. Specialty Fin.
Grp., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1030 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (requiring plaintiffs to clarify whether
private limited companies and limited company “organized under Icelandic law are
equivalent to corporations or limited liability companies under United States’ law”). This

1

One court assumed diversity jurisdiction existed based on a GmbH’s principal
place of business and place of incorporation, but noted that the entity may require
citizenship allegations like an LLC to avoid a jurisdictional attack, and did not definitively
rule a GmbH should be treated as a corporation for jurisdictional purposes. Mueller v.
Potsch, No. 4:11 CV 47, 2013 W L 1290836, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2013).
Compare Werner Kammann Maschinenfabrik, GmbH v. Max Levy Autograph, Inc., No.
CIV.A. 01–1083, 2002 W L 126634, *1 n. 1 (E.D. Pa 2002) (treating a GmbH as a
corporation), with TMT N. Am., Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH, 124 F.3d 876, 879 n.1 (7th
Cir. 1997 ) (treating GmbHs as LLCs), and Keshock v. Metabowerke Gmbh, No.
15–00345–N. 2015 W L 10458544, *5 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 25, 2015).
4

Case 1:21-cv-02315-PAB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5

information is critical to the Court’s jurisdictional analysis. While a corporation is
deemed to be a citizen of “every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business,”2 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), as stated above, the citizenship of a limited liability
company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. If defendant
DynaEnergetics GmbH’s form of organization is more akin to a limited liability company,
then its citizenship will be determined by the citizenship of its members, not by its place
of incorporation and its principal place of business.
Because the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to determine
the citizenship of plaintiff and defendant DynaEnergetics GmbH and therefore whether
the Court has jurisdiction, it is
ORDERED that, on or before January 20, 2022, plaintiff shall show cause why
this case should not be dismissed due to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED January 10, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge

2

For purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, a corporation
incorporated in a foreign country is deemed a citizen of its place of incorporation and
the location of its principal place of business. Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de
Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994).
5