Credeur v. Dolgencorp, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that dft Dolgencorp, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of Removal which: (1) clarifies its organizational form, and if it is organized as a limited liability company to properly allege its citizenship; and, (2) cla rifies the organizational form and properly alleges the citizenship of defendants Building Pro, Armadillo Group and Max Speciality Insurance Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Building Pro, Armadillo Group and Max Speciality Insurance Company file a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement within 14 days.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 7/15/2011. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TAMMY CREDEUR
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-283-FJP-SCR
DOLGENCORP, LLC D/B/A DOLLAR
GENERAL, ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
and
ORDER TO FILE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General removed this
case asserting subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
diversity of citizenship.

In the Notice of Removal the defendant

alleged that the plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, and it “is a
foreign company organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky,
with its principal place of business located in the State of
Tennessee.”1

Defendant Dolgencorp alleged that defendant Building

Pros “is a citizen of Texas,” defendant Armadillo Group “is a
citizen

of

Michigan,”

and

defendant

Max

Speciality

Insurance

Company “is a citizen of Virginia.” Defendant did not specifically
allege whether defendants Building Pros and Armadillo Group are
organized as corporations or limited liability companies.

If they

are corporations, the Notice of Removal did not allege where they
are incorporated and have their principal places of business.

As

to defendant Max Speciality Insurance Company, assuming it is
1

Record document number 1, ¶ III.

organized as a corporation, the Notice of Removal did not allege
where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business.
In its Corporate Disclosure Statement, defendant Dolgencorp.
LLC stated that it “is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dollar General
Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Kentucky.”2

This statement does not clarify whether defendant

Dolgencorp, LLC is a corporation or a limited liability company.
Defendant did not state where Dollar General Corporation has its
principal place of business.
The other defendants have not filed a Corporate Disclosure
Statement. Rule 7.1(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires the statement to be
filed with the party’s first appearance. Defendants Building Pros,
Armadillo Group and Max Speciality Insurance Company filed an
answer May 19, 2011.3

Consequently, their disclosure statements

are significantly past due.
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each

party

must

be

distinctly

and

affirmatively

alleged

in

accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).4
Under § 1332(c)(1) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of

2

3

Record document number 3.
Record document number 7.

4

Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.
1991), citing, McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653,
654 (5th Cir. 1975)(quoting 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.10, at
1662).
2

any state in which it is incorporated, and of the state in which it
has its principal place of business.

For purposes of diversity,

the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by
considering the citizenship of all its members.5

Thus, to 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

in

accordance

with

the

requirements of § 1332(a) and (c).6
Defendant’s jurisdictional allegations are unclear and are not
sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.

The designation

“LLC” typically is understood to mean that the entity is organized
as a limited liability company rather than a corporation.

If

defendant Dolgencorp, LLC is in fact a corporation, then the
defendant’s jurisdictional allegation regarding it citizenship is
sufficient.

However, if it is a limited liability company, then

the defendant’s jurisdictional allegation is not sufficient.
As to the other defendants, it could well be that each is both
organized as a corporation and has its principal place of business

5

Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th
Cir. 2008); see Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110
S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990).
6

The same requirement applies to any member of a limited
liability company which is also a limited liability company or a
partnership.
Turner Bros. Crane and Rigging, LLC v. Kingboard
Chemical Holding Ltd., 2007 WL 2848154 (M.D.La. Sept. 24,
2007)(when partners or members are themselves entities or
associations, citizenship must be traced through however many
layers of members or partners there are).
3

in the same state, such that each is a citizen only the state
alleged.

However, given the lack of preciseness of the defendant

Dolgencorp, LLC’s jurisdictional allegations, the better course is
for the removing defendant to also clarify the corporate form and
allege the citizenship of defendants Building Pros, Armadillo Group
and Max Speciality Insurance Company with particularity sufficient
to leave no doubt about the court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Dolgencorp, LLC shall have 14
days to file an Amended Notice of Removal which: (1) clarifies its
organizational form, and if it is organized as a limited liability
company to properly allege its citizenship; and, (2) clarifies the
organizational
defendants

form

Building

and
Pro,

properly

alleges

Armadillo

Group

the

citizenship

and

Max

of

Speciality

Insurance Company.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further
notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Building Pro, Armadillo
Group

and

Max

Speciality

Insurance

Company

file

a

Rule

disclosure statement within 14 days.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 15, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4

7.1