Champion Technologies, Inc. v. Parrish et al

Filing 8

ORDER to Amend Complaint: IT IS ORDERED that pltf Champion Technologies, Inc., shall have 14 days to file an amended complaint which properly alleges the citizenship of dfts Steve Parrish and Premier Chemicals & Services, LLC... Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 5/29/2012. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-197-JJB-SCR
STEVE PARRISH, ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Champion Technologies, Inc., filed a Complaint for
Preliminary

Injunction

and

Damages

alleging

subject

matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship. The
complaint names as defendants Steve Parrish and Premier Chemicals
& Services, LLC.

Plaintiff alleged that Parrish is “domiciled in

Livingston Parish, Louisiana,” and Premier Chemicals is “a limited
liability

company

organized

under

the

laws

of

the

State

of

Louisiana and domiciled in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.”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
any state in which it is incorporated, and of the state in which it

1

Record document number 1, ¶¶ 2, 3. Plaintiff alleged that
it is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
Texas. Id. at ¶ 1.
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).

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 members of a
limited liability company, and the citizenship of each member in
accordance with the requirements of § 1332(a) and (c).4
Plaintiff’s

jurisdictional

allegation

regarding

defendant

Premier Chemicals & Services, LLC is not sufficient for the court
to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Neither the

state where Premier Chemicals & Services, LLC is organized, nor the
state where it has its principal place of business, determines its
citizenship.
As to defendant Parrish, the where an individual is domiciled
is usually the same as the state of which he is a citizen, but that
is not always so.

The better practice is to allege the state of

which the individual is a citizen.
Therefore;

3

Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th
Cir. 2008); 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.
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

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Champion Technologies, Inc.,
shall have 14 days to file an amended complaint which properly
alleges the citizenship of defendants Steve Parrish and Premier
Chemicals & Services, LLC.
Failure

to

comply

with

this

order

may

result

in

the

plaintiff’s complaint being dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction without further notice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 29, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3