Hernandez v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE regarding diversity jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by 11/17/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 11/7/22. (df)

Case 6:22-cv-01236-EFM-KGG Document 15 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HUGO HERNANDEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________)

Case No.: 22-1236-EFM-KGG

SHOW CAUSE ORDER
Plaintiff Hugo Hernandez filed this action in state court alleging claims for
personal injury resulting from an automobile collision occurring in the state of
Kansas. (Doc. 1-1, state court Petition.) Defendants subsequently removed the
case to federal court in the District of Kansas. (Doc. 1.)
In the notice of removal, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is a citizen of
Kansas and individual Defendant Tesfay Gebrewahd is believed to be a citizen of
the state of Florida. Defendants then address the citizenship of the various
Defendant entities as follows:
 Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in
the state of Washington, making it a citizen of
these states.
 Defendant Amazon.com, LLC, is an inactive
Delaware limited liability company with its last
1 

Case 6:22-cv-01236-EFM-KGG Document 15 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 5

principal place of business in the state of
Washington. Defendants contend Amazon.com,
LLC is a citizen of these two states.
 Defendant Amazon.com Services, Inc., is an
inactive Delaware corporation with its last
principal place of business in the state of
Washington, making it a citizen of these states.
 Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in the state of
Washington. Defendants contend Amazon.com
Services, LLC is deemed to be a citizen of these
states.
 Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in
the state of Washington, making it a citizen of
these states.
 Defendant Marrosso Express, LLC, is believed to
be a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in the state of Texas.
Defendants contend Marrosso Express, LLC is
deemed to be a citizen of Texas.
(Doc. 1, at 2-3.)
The Notice of Removal alleges this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (diversity). (Id., at 1.) In this instance, however, the
Notice fails to allege facts sufficient to allow the Court to confirm whether
diversity of citizenship exists.
It is the independent obligation of the court to determine that subject matter
jurisdiction is proper and that the court “do[es] not exceed the scope of [its]
2 

Case 6:22-cv-01236-EFM-KGG Document 15 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 5

jurisdiction … .” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434,
131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). As such, this Court “must raise and
decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”
Id. (citation omitted). If it becomes apparent that jurisdiction does not exist, the
court, on its own, “must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings … .”
Penteco Corp. Ltd. P’ship v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir.
1991); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1332(a), federal courts have original jurisdiction
over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is
between:
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state, except that the district courts shall not have original
jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence
in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or
subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title,
as plaintiff and citizens of a State or 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

3 

Case 6:22-cv-01236-EFM-KGG Document 15 Filed 11/07/22 Page 4 of 5

Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015). Simply stated, diversity is
absent when citizens of the same state are on both sides of the case.
To establish diversity jurisdiction, the organizational structure determines
the citizenship of a business entity. For instance, the citizenship of a corporation is
both the state or foreign state of incorporation and the state or foreign state where
its principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Newsome v.
Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257, 1267 (10th Cir. 2013). Citizenship for unincorporated
associations (such as a limited liability company, general partnership, or limited
partnership) is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Siloam
Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015).
As stated above, the Notice of Removal alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff
and the individual Defendant. The Notice correctly alleges the citizenship of the
corporate Defendants by identifying their state of incorporation and state of their
principal place of business.
That stated, the Notice incorrectly alleges the citizenship of three different
unincorporated association LLC Defendants as the state in which they were legally
created and the state in which their principal place of business is, or most recently
was, located. These factors, however, determine the citizenship of corporations,
not that of unincorporated associations. The Notice makes no mention of the
citizenship of each of the members of these various unincorporated LLC
4 

Case 6:22-cv-01236-EFM-KGG Document 15 Filed 11/07/22 Page 5 of 5

Defendants. Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1234. Simply stated, the Court
must be able to conclude the citizenship of all members of the various LLC
Defendants and is unable to do so based on the information alleged by Defendants.
As such, the Court cannot determine the validity of the claimed diversity.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that by November 17, 2022, Defendants
shall file a status report, with affidavits attached, properly alleging and
demonstrating the citizenship of the three unincorporated association Defendants
and showing cause why the undersigned Magistrate Judge should not recommend
that the case be remanded to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2022, at Wichita, Kansas.
/S KENNETH G. GALE
HON. KENNETH G. GALE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5