Prosser v. Global Tower, LLC

Filing 22

ORDER DIRECTING defendant to adequately allege diversity of citizenship by October 25, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 10/11/2013. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DON E PROSSER,
Trustee of the Radar Land Trust,
No. 71-11, dated July 31, 1989,
Plaintiff,
v.

GLOBAL TOWER, LLC, dba
Global Tower Partners LLC,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-200-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Before the Court can enter a ruling on plaintiff Prosser’s (plaintiff) motion
to dismiss without prejudice (Doc. 16), the Court must address the matter of the
insufficient notice of removal of defendant Global Tower, LLC, doing business as
Global Tower Partners, LLC (defendant) (Doc. 2). The Court is obligated to raise
sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Craig v.
Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sadat v. Mertes, 615
F.2d 1176, 1188 (7th Cir. 1980) (stating, “it has been the virtually universally
accepted practice of the federal courts to permit any party to challenge or, indeed,
raise sua sponte the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court at any time and at
any stage of the proceedings”)).
Page 1 of 4

Due to the deficiencies below mentioned, defendant is ORDERED to brief
the jurisdiction of this action by October 25, 2013, or this case shall be
REMANDED.
Defendant removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The statute regarding diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1332, requires complete diversity between the parties plus an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The removal

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is construed narrowly and doubts concerning removal
are resolved in favor of remand. Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911
(7th Cir. 1993).
Instantly, defendant has inadequately alleged complete diversity.
First, as to plaintiff, trustee of the Radar Land Trust, Global Tower alleges
plaintiff is a “resident of the State of Illinois” (Doc. 2). It is well-established that
allegations of residency may or may not demonstrate citizenship, as citizenship
depends on domicile. See Meyerson v. Harrahs East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d
616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); see also McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d
651, 653 (7th Cir. 1998) (An allegation of residence is inadequate.). Thus, an
individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled, meaning where
he or she has a permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he or
she has the intention of returning when absent from it. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312
F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). When the parties allege residency but not
Page 2 of 4

citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit. Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000
(7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, defendant is ordered to correctly allege the citizenship
of plaintiff Prosser, or the Court shall remand this action.
As to defendant’s citizenship, defendant is named in plaintiff’s complaint as
Global Tower, LLC, doing business as Global Tower Partners, LLC. Defendant
attaches a declaration to its notice of removal which states:
3. Global Tower, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
in good standing in the State of Delaware.
4. Its sole member is Global Tower Holdings, LLC which is
also a Delaware limited liability company in good standing.
.

.

.

6. No member of Global Tower, LLC is a citizen of the State of
Illinois.
(Doc. 2-3). 1
The Seventh Circuit has made abundantly clear that parties must allege the
citizenship of all the members of a limited liability company through all the layers
of ownership until the Court reaches only individual human beings and
corporations to adequately allege citizenship of such entities. Hart v. Terminex
Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating, “[w]e have explained that the
‘citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many

1

Defendant in its declaration also provides information as to the citizenship of GTP Acquisition
Partners II, LLC. Defendant alleges it “assigned all of its right, title and interest to that certain
communication tower and related equipment and property” to GTP Acquisition Partners II, LLC,
prior to the filing of plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 2-3). Should defendant feel it has been improperly
named in this action, it must so notify the Court.

Page 3 of 4

layers of partners or members there may be’”) (quoting Meyerson v. Harrah’s
East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002)). Thus, a federal court
must know each member’s citizenship, and if necessary, each member’s
members’ citizenship. Defendant has not alleged the citizenship of the members of
Global Tower Holdings, LLC.
Therefore,

defendant

is

ORDERED

to

correct

the

aforementioned

deficiencies by October 25, 2013, or the Court shall REMAND this action.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.10.11
12:53:17 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of October, 2013.

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4