Hartman v. Synthes, Inc. et al

Filing 2

ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT: Plaintiff shall have ten days to file an amended complaint which properly alleges the citizenship of each defendant. Amended Pleadings due by 8/18/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/6/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEONARD HARTMAN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-472-JJB-SCR
SYNTHES, INC., ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff

filed

a

Complaint

asserting

subject

matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship.

As

to each of the 10 defendants, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant is either “a foreign corporation organized under the laws
of

the

State

of

Delaware

and

doing

substantial

business

in

Louisiana,” or “a foreign corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Massachusetts and doing substantial business in
Louisiana,” or “a foreign limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and doing substantial business in
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 a citizen of every state

1

2

Record document number 1, Complaint, ¶ 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).

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

of

a

limited

For purposes of diversity, the

liability

company

considering the citizenship of all its members.3

is

determined

by

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
Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are not sufficient to
determine whether there is diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiff

failed to allege the state where each corporate defendant has its
principal place of business.

Plaintiff failed to identify the

members of the limited liability company defendants and allege each
member’s

citizenship.

The

allegation

that

a

defendant

does

substantial business in Louisiana is not sufficient to conclude
that Louisiana is the state where the defendant has its principal
place of business.
Therefore;

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).
2

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall have ten days to file an
amended complaint which properly alleges the citizenship of each
defendant.
Failure

to

comply

with

this

order

may

result

in

the

plaintiff’s Complaint being dismissed without further notice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 6, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3