Carrier et al v. Holland et al

Filing 4

ORDER to Amend Notice of Removal: IT IS ORDERED that removing dft Scottsdale Indemnity Company shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of Removal which (1) clarifies the citizenship of the pltfs and dft Lawrence W. Holland, and (2) clarifies the form of organization of dft Automated Transportation, LLC, and properly alleges the citizenship of dft based on its form of organization.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 2/6/2012. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JACK CARRIER, SR. AND
EVA CARRIER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 12-66-BAJ-SCR

LAWRENCE W. HOLLAND, ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant Scottsdale Indemnity Company 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 defendant alleged that
the plaintiffs are “residents of the Parish of Livingston, State of
Louisiana,” defendant Lawrence W. Holland is a “resident of the
State

of

Indiana

and

domiciled

in

Tell

City,

Indiana,”

and

“defendant, Automated Transportation, LLC, is a foreign company
organized under the laws of the State of Indiana with a principal
place of business in St. Meinard, Indiana.”1
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each

party

1

must

be

distinctly

and

affirmatively

alleged

in

Record document number 1, Notice of Removal, ¶¶ II, III.
Defendant also alleged that it is an insurer organized under the
laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Arizona,
and that defendant German American Insurance is an insurance agency
organized under the laws of Indiana with its principal place of
business in Indiana. Id. at ¶ III.

accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).2
Under § 1332(c)(1) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
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.
Plaintiffs are alleged to be “residents” of Louisiana and
defendant Holland is alleged to be a “resident of ... and domiciled

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).
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). The determination of the citizenship of
the parties in this case is not affected by the Federal Courts
Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.
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).
2

in ... Indiana.”

The state of where a person is a resident is not

always equivalent to the state of which it is a citizen.

A person

may be residing in one state and be a citizen of another.

And

while the state where a person is domiciled is often the same as
the state of which the person is a citizen, the better practice is
to allege the state of which the person is a “citizen,” the term
used in § 1332(a).
Defendant Automated Transportation, LLC uses the abbreviation
“LLC” in its name.

This abbreviation is commonly understood to

mean the entity is organized as a limited liability company rather
than a corporation.
presumably

Because defendant Automated Transportation is

organized

as

a

limited

liability

company,

its

citizenship cannot be determined from the defendant’s allegations.
The state where a limited liability company is organized and where
it has its principal place of business does not determine its
citizenship.
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that removing defendant Scottsdale Indemnity
Company shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of Removal
which (1) clarifies the citizenship of the plaintiffs and defendant
Lawrence W. Holland, and (2) clarifies the form of organization of
defendant Automated Transportation, LLC, and properly alleges the
citizenship of defendant based on its form of organization.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being

3

remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further
notice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 6, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4