Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Kleinmann
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: Plaintiff will SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before October 28, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 10/14/2020. (jal)
Case 2:20-cv-02511-HLT-JPO Document 7 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02511-HLT-JPO
CALVIN RAY KLEINMANN,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff has filed this action to confirm an arbitration award. The stated basis for
jurisdiction is diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under § 1332, the “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 . . . .”
“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—no plaintiff may be a citizen of the
same state as any defendant.” Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901,
905 (10th Cir. 2015). In the Tenth Circuit, for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, a
limited liability company is an unincorporated association and takes the citizenship of all its
members. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015);
see also Mgmt. Nominees, Inc. v. Alderney Invs., LLC, 813 F.3d 1321, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 2016).
A corporation’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by its place of
incorporation and its principal place of business. See Mgmt. Nominees, 813 F.3d at 1324; see also
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
The complaint states both that Plaintiff is an LLC and also a corporation organized in
Delaware and with its principal place of business in Missouri. Defendant is said to be a resident of
Case 2:20-cv-02511-HLT-JPO Document 7 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2
Kansas. To the extent Plaintiff is a corporation, this Court would have jurisdiction. But if Plaintiff
is an LLC, there is no diversity unless the citizenship of all its members is diverse from Defendant.
Based on the current complaint, the Court cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction.1 See United
States ex rel. Gen. Rock & Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev. Corp., 55 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir. 1995)
(“The party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must allege . . . the facts essential to
show jurisdiction.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)).
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE in writing on or
before October 28, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 14, 2020
/s/ Holly L. Teeter
HOLLY L. TEETER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
As noted above, the stated basis for jurisdiction in the complaint is diversity jurisdiction. Although the complaint
also states an arbitration award may be entered by “any court of competent jurisdiction,” it is unclear whether
Plaintiff is asserting an alternative basis of jurisdiction other than diversity.
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?