Jackson et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et al

Filing 29

ORDER to Amend Notice of Removal. The removing defendant Syngenta CropProtection, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of Removal which clarifies its organizational form, and if it is a limited liability company properly alleges its citizenship. Alternatively, the defendant may file an amended answer which does the same thing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/04/2013. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROSHAUNDA JACKSON, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-581-SDD-SCR
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC removed this case from
state court asserting subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), diversity of citizenship.
defendant

alleged

the

plaintiffs

In its Notice of Removal the
are

citizens

of

Louisiana,

“Syngenta was and continues to be a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in North Carolina,” and Monsanto
Company is a Delaware company with its principal place of business
in Missouri.1
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each

party

accordance

must
with

be
§

distinctly

1332(a)

and

and
(c).2

affirmatively
Under

§

alleged

in

1332(c)(1)

a

corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it is

1

Record document number 1, ¶ 10. In the Notice of Removal,
“Syngenta” refers to Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. Defendant
alleged that the remaining, nondiverse defendants were improperly
joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Id., ¶ 13.
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); Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir.
2009).

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

For purposes of diversity, the citizenship of a

liability

company

is

determined

citizenship of all its members.3

by

considering

the

The state where a limited

liability company is organized and where it has its principal place
of business does not determine its citizenship for the purpose of
§ 1332.

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
Defendant

Syngenta’s

jurisdictional

allegations

sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.

are

not

Syngenta alleged

jurisdiction in its Notice of Removal as if it is a corporation.
However, its name indicates that it is not a corporation; rather,
the “LLC” in its name indicates that it is a limited liability
company.

If it is a limited liability company, it did not

correctly allege its citizenship in accordance with § 1332 and
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co.

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); Mullins, supra.
2

Therefore;
IT

IS

ORDERED

that

removing

defendant

Syngenta

Crop

Protection, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of
Removal which clarifies its organizational form, and if it is a
limited

liability

company

properly

alleges

its

citizenship.5

Alternatively, the defendant may file an amended answer which does
the same thing.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being
remanded

without

further

notice

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 4, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Neither the defendant’s answer, record document number 4,
nor its Rule 7.1, Fed.R.Civ.P., disclosure statement, record
document number 5, provide the needed information.
3