Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company et al v. Master Craft Engineering, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER giving Plaintiffs until 8/20/2010 to file amendment. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/12/2010. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA V A L D O S T A DIVISION H A R T F O R D UNDERWRITERS IN S U R A N C E COMPANY and HARTFORD C A S U A L T Y INSURANCE COMPANY, C iv il Action: 7:10-CV-78 (HL) P la in tiffs , v. M A S T E R CRAFT ENGINEERING, INC., C A S E NEW HOLLAND, CNH AMERICA L L C , CAROLINA COMMERCIAL HEAT T R E A T IN G CONYERS DIVISION, and B L U E W A T E R THERMAL PROCESSING, LLC, Defendants. ORDER O n August 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed this matter in the Valdosta Division of the U n ite d States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging diversity as th e basis for federal jurisdiction. Because federal courts have only limited ju ris d ic tio n , part of the Court's initial review process requires the Court to determine w h e th e r a proper jurisdictional basis exists in each case. Thus, when a plaintiff files a claim in federal court it is generally the plaintiff's burden to allege the specific facts n e c e s s a ry to establish jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1 2 7 3 (11th Cir. 2000). A federal court's jurisdiction can be based upon either a question of federal la w or diversity of citizenship; however, as Plaintiffs are attempting to establish

jurisdiction based on diversity, the Court will not discuss the necessary elements of fe d e ra l question jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction re q u ire s the legal matter to exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest a n d costs, and be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). An action for declaratory relief, such as the one at issue here, must in d e p e n d e n tly satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction requirements; the D e c la ra to ry Judgment Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (authorizing district courts to grant declaratory relief in "a case o f actual controversy within its jurisdiction"). Thus, in order for Plaintiff to maintain its action for declaratory judgment in this Court, it must still satisfy the jurisdictional p re re q u is ite s for filing an action in the federal district courts. P la in tiffs allege that jurisdiction is proper in this Court because there is d iv e rs ity of citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy is greater than $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . Plaintiffs state that they are Delaware corporations, with their respective p rin c ip a l places of business in Connecticut. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Master C ra ft Engineering, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia; that Defendant CNH America LLC is a Delaware limited liability company w ith its principal place of business and headquarters in Wisconsin; that upon in fo rm a tio n and belief, Defendant Carolina Commercial Heat Treating - Conyers D iv is io n is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in North

2

Carolina, and that Defendant Bluewater Thermal Processing, LLC is a Delaware lim ite d liability company with its principal place of business in South Carolina. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the citizenship of a limited liability c o m p a n y , as an artificial, unincorporated entity, is determined by the citizenship of a ll the members composing the organization. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast S C H Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, a limited lia b ility company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a c itiz e n . Id. at 1022. And, therefore, a limited liability company could be deemed a c itiz e n of more than one state. To sufficiently allege the citizenship of a limited lia b ility company, a party must list the citizenship of all the members of the limited lia b ility company. Id. In examining the jurisdictional allegations presented in the C o m p la in t, the Court finds they are lacking, as Plaintiff failed to identify the c itiz e n s h ip of each of the members of Defendant CNH America LLC and Defendant B lu e w a te r Thermal Processing, LLC. T h e Court also notes that Plaintiffs make no citizenship allegations with regard to Defendant Case New Holland. A s a result of these deficiencies, the Court is unable to ascertain whether c o m p le te diversity of citizenship exists and, therefore, the Complaint fails to satisfy th e prerequisites of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Court is of the opinion th a t Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend to correct the deficiencies. With regard to th e LLC Defendants, this does not mean that Plaintiffs are to make a blanket
3

statement that the members of the LLC are each citizens of a certain state. Plaintiffs a re to identify each member of the LLCs and provide his, her, or its place of c i t i z e n s h ip . P la in tiffs shall have until August 20, 2010 in which to file an amendment that c o n fo rm s to the findings of this Order. Failure to plead the necessary jurisdictional p re re q u is ite s in a timely manner will result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

S O ORDERED, this the 12 th day of August, 2010.

s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

4