Hart v. The Old Evangeline Downs, LLC et al

Filing 2

ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT: Plaintiff William Hart shall have seven days to file an amended complaint which clarifies the defendants form of organization and properly alleges the defendants citizenship. Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being dismissed without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/9/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WILLIAM HART
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-644-BAJ-SCR
THE OLD EVANGELINE DOWNS, LLC,
ET AL
ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff William Hart filed his Complaint asserting subject
matter

jurisdiction

citizenship.

under

Plaintiff

28

U.S.C.

alleged

that

§
he

1332,
is

diversity

of

citizen

of

a

Mississippi, and the “defendants are citizens and/or residents of
a state other than Mississippi.”1

Plaintiff specifically alleged

that the defendant Old Evangeline Downs, LLC is a “corporation
incorporated under the laws and statutes of the State of Louisiana,
authorized to do an doing business in the State of Louisiana and
within the jurisdiction” of this court.
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each

party

must

be

distinctly

and

affirmatively

alleged

in

accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).2

1

Record document number 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 2. The other
defendant, ABC Insurance Company, is a fictitious entity whose
citizenship is ignored for the purpose of this order.
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).

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
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
allege

the

citizenship

of

a

corporation

the

Thus, to properly
party

asserting

jurisdiction must alleged both the state(s) of incorporation and
the principal place of business.

For 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

Use of “LLC” in the entity’s

name usually means the entity is organized as a limited liability
company rather than a corporation.
Defendants’ jurisdictional allegations are not sufficient to
determine whether there is diversity of citizenship.

Although the

defendant uses the “LLC” designation in its name, the plaintiff
alleged that it is a corporation rather than a limited liability
company.

The form of organization matters in determining whether

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

the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

And if it is actually

organized as a corporation, the plaintiff failed to allege the
state where the defendant has its principal place of business.
Whether the defendant is organized as a corporation or as a limited
liability company, where the defendant is authorized to do business
does not determine its citizenship.
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff William Hart shall have seven
days to file an amended complaint which clarifies the defendant’s
form

of

organization

and

properly

alleges

the

defendant’s

citizenship.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being
dismissed

without

further

notice

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 9, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3