Moore v. Miller et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Supplemental Complaint without prejudice to the submission of a pleading properly setting forth the citizenship particulars required to establish that the court has diversity jurisdiction over the case with the proposed additional defendant, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Amended Pleadings due by 8/5/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 7/22/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRIS A. MOORE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-180-BAJ-RLB

NOLAN W. MILLER, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended and
Supplemental Complaint (Previously Petition for Damages) (R. Doc. 11). The motion was filed
on July 20, 2015, the deadline to amend pleadings provided in the court’s Scheduling Order. (R.
Doc. 10). The proposed amended pleading seeks to add an additional defendant, Metropolitan
Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (R. Doc. 11-3 at 2). While the Notice of Removal
identifies the citizenship of the current parties (R. Doc. 1 at 2), the proposed amended pleading
does not identify the citizenship of the proposed additional defendant, Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company.
The court notes the potential insufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ allegation of the citizenship
of the parties as follows:
1.

____

A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship rather than
mere residence of an individual. See Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1974 (5th Cir. 1974)
(“For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State
is not sufficient.”).

2.

X

A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege both the state of incorporation
and principal place of business of each corporate party. 1 See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). A corporation’s “principal place of business is its “nerve center,”
meaning “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct. 1181,
1192 (2010) (“A corporation's nerve center, usually its main headquarters, is a

1

The Court must also consider whether an amended complaint adding a new party will destroy diversity in
determining whether to grant leave to amend.

single place.” Id. at 1193.). The citizenship of Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company is not provided.
3.

A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of each
corporate party. Even where the insurer takes on its insured’s citizenship under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)(A)-(C), its own citizenship still is considered in determining
whether complete diversity exists. Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 489 F.2d 721,
723 (5th Cir. 1972).

4.

A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must properly allege the citizenship of an
unincorporated association. The citizenship of an unincorporated association, such
as a limited liability company, is determined by the citizenship of each of its
members, not its principal office or registered agent. See, e.g., Carden v. Arkoma
Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 186 (1990) (“court must look to the citizenship of a
partnership's limited, as well as its general, partners to determine whether there is
complete diversity”); Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th
Cir. 2008) (“like limited partnerships and other unincorporated associations or
entities, the citizenship of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its
members.”); International Paper Co. v. Denkmann Assoc., 116 F.3d 134, 137 (5th
Cir. 1997) (“the citizenship of a partnership is determined by reference to the
citizenship of each of its partners”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended

and Supplemental Complaint (Previously Petition for Damages) (R. Doc. 11) is DENIED
without prejudice to the submission of a pleading properly setting forth the citizenship
particulars required to establish that the court has diversity jurisdiction over the case with the
proposed additional defendant, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for amending the complaint is hereby
extended until August 5, 2015 to allow Plaintiff to refile in accordance with this order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 22, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE