Peoples v. Jamjomar XXIII, LLC, et al

Filing 4

ORDER AND REASONS re 1 Notice of Removal. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant amend its Notice of Removal within 20 days of the entry of this Order to properly allege jurisdiction or the case will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 5/2/2018.(sa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ASHLAY PEOPLES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 18-4494

JAMJOMAR XXIII, LLC

SECTION: “H”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
The Court now examines subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Defendant Jamjomar XXIII, LLC (“Jamjomar”) has failed to adequately allege
diversity in its Notice of Removal. Accordingly, Defendant shall amend the
Notice of Removal to correct this jurisdictional defect within 20 days of the
entry of this Order or the case will be remanded for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ashlay Peoples filed a Petition for Damages in state court on
March 28, 2018 alleging that she slipped and fell at a McDonalds’s store owned

1

and operated by Defendant Jamjomar. 1 Defendant Jamjomar filed a Notice of
Removal in this Court on May 1, 2018, invoking this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At the time of the Notice of Removal, the
remaining, joined defendants were Jamjomar and International Insurance
Company of Hannover SE. With regard to citizenship, the Notice of Removal
alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, that Defendant International
Insurance Company of Hannover SE is a foreign company with its principal
place of business in Germany, and that Defendant Jamjomar is a “Michigan
Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Detroit,
Michigan.” 2
LAW AND ANALYSIS
This Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte. 3 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised
upon diversity of citizenship. 4 Cases arising under § 1332 require, inter alia,
complete diversity of citizenship. 5 “The concept of complete diversity requires
that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states
than all persons on the other side.” 6 In this matter, the burden of proving
complete diversity lies with Defendant Jamjomar. 7 To carry this burden,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

See Doc. 1-2.
Doc. 1 at 3.
Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548,565 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Union Planters Bank Nat’l
Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457,460 (5th Cir. 2004)).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
McClaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
See Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th
Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

2

Defendant must “distinctly and affirmatively allege [ ] the citizenship of the
parties.” 8
The manner in which a court determines the citizenship of juridical
persons varies. A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is
incorporated as well as the state where its principal place of business is
located. 9 Non-corporate entities, however, do not acquire state citizenship
independent of the entity’s owners. 10 Therefore, in order for a Court to
determine the citizenship of an unincorporated association, such as a
partnership, it must look to the citizenship of all the partners. 11 Similarly, the
“citizenship of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its members.” 12
Accordingly, Defendant “must list the citizenship of each member of each
limited liability company to properly allege diversity of jurisdiction.” 13
Defendant Jamjomar has failed to adequately plead the citizenship of
itself. Defendant alleges that Jamjomar is a limited liability company, but
neither identifies its members nor alleges their citizenship. Accordingly, the
Court is unable to properly determine the citizenship of Defendant.

Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001) (alteration in original)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
9 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
10 Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 188–89 (1990).
11 Id. at 195–96.
12 Harvey v. Grey Wold Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
13 Bona Fide Demolition & Recovery, LLC v. Crosby Constr. Co. of La., Inc., No. 07-3115, 2009
WL 413504, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Pyramid Transp.,
Inc. v. Greatwide Dallas Mavis, LLC, No. 3:12–CV–0149–D, 2013 WL 840664, at *6 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 7, 2013) (“The citizenship of each member of a limited liability company must be
alleged.”) (citations omitted); Toney v. Knauf Gips KG, No. 12–638–JJB–SCR, 2012 WL
5923960, at *1 (M.D. La. Oct. 25, 2012) (“[T]o properly allege the citizenship of a limited
liability company . . . the party asserting jurisdiction must identify each of the entity’s
members . . . and the citizenship of each [member].”) (internal footnote and citations
omitted).
8

3

CONCLUSION
Because Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to adequately allege
jurisdiction, the Court ORDERS that Defendant amend its Notice of Removal
within 20 days of the entry of this Order to properly allege jurisdiction or the
case will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 2nd day of May, 2018.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4