Turner v. Dr. Miracle's, Inc. et al
Filing
5
ORDER: Removing defendants Dr. Miracles, Inc. and Dr. Miracles, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of Removal which properly allege the citizenship of defendants Dr. Miracles, LLC and Colony Insurance Company. Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/30/11. (DCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AMY TURNER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-779-BAJ-SCR
DR. MIRACLES, INC., ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants Dr. Miracles, Inc. and Dr. Miracles, LLC removed
this case from state court asserting subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship.
To establish
diversity of citizenship, in the Notice of Removal the defendants
alleged that the plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen , “Dr. Miracles,
Inc., and Dr. Miracles, LLC [] are Delaware companies chartered
under the laws of Delaware with their principal place of business
in the State of New York,” and “Colony Insurance Company is a
Virginia Insurance Company, domiciled in the State of Virginia.”1
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each
party
must
be
distinctly
and
affirmatively
alleged
in
accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).2
Under § 1332(c)(1) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
1
Record document number 1, §§ 6, 7 and9. The other defendant
is Rani Corporation, an Illinois company with its principal place
of business in that state. Id. § 8.
2
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).
every 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.3
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).4
Defendants’ jurisdictional allegations are not sufficient to
establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, the defendants did not
properly allege the citizenship of Dr. Miracles, LLC.
Second, the
defendants did not allege the state where Colony Insurance Company
has its principal place of business.
The court cannot assume that
the state where defendant Colony Insurance Company is “domiciled”
is the same state where it has its principal places of business.5
3
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).
4
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).
5
Diversity jurisdiction is based on citizenship, not where
the party is domiciled. Furthermore, while the term “domicile” is
sometimes used to refer to the state of incorporation, the better
practice is to allege the state of which the party is a “citizen”
(continued...)
2
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that removing defendants Dr. Miracles, Inc. and
Dr. Miracles, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of
Removal which properly allege the citizenship of defendants Dr.
Miracles, LLC and Colony Insurance Company.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further
notice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 30, 2011.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
(...continued)
– the term used in § 1332.
3
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?