VMK Enterprise v. Weyerhaeuser Company
ORDER: VMK Enterprise shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Second Amended Complaint with a proposed pleading that is a comprehensive complaint as written. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 12/21/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Before the Court is an Unopposed Ex Parte Motion for Leave, filed by plaintiff VMK
Enterprise (“VMK”).1 The proposed Second Amended Complaint,2 however, fails to properly
allege the citizenship of the parties. The proposed Second Amended Complaint contains the
following allegations regarding citizenship:
The Second Amended Complaint of VMK Enterprise, a Louisiana
Partnership (composed of partners Vickey Lott, Kim Hutchinson,
Monica Harrison, all residents and citizens of Louisiana) domiciled
in Livingston Parish Louisiana, respectfully represents:
Made defendants are:
Weyerhaeuser Company, a foreign business corporation
domiciled in the State of Washington, having its principal place of
business in Louisiana in Baton Rouge, Louisiana;
Larry Johnson Trucking, LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability
Company, with its principal place of business in McComb,
Larry Johnson, a person of the age of majority domiciled in the State of
Because the original Complaint filed in this Court alleged subject matter jurisdiction based
upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,4 proper information regarding the citizenship
R. Doc. 36.
R. Doc. 36-2.
R. Doc. 36-2 at p. 1.
See, R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3.
of all parties is necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. In the proposed Second
Amended Complaint, citizenship has not been adequately alleged. Although the citizenship of
VMK and Larry Johnson has been adequately alleged,5 the citizenship of Weyerhaeuser Company
and Larry Johnson Trucking, LLC has not been adequately alleged. With respect to Weyerhaeuser
Company, which is alleged to be a corporation, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “For diversity
jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it was incorporated and the
state in which it has its principal place of business.” Getty Oil, Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North
America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Thus, to properly
allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party must identify the place of incorporation and the
corporation’s principal place of business in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
With respect to Larry Johnson Trucking, LLC, the Fifth Circuit has held that for purposes
of diversity, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by considering the
citizenship of all its members. Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir.
2008). Thus, to properly allege the citizenship of a limited liability company, a party must identify
each of the members of the limited liability company and the citizenship of each member in
accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c). The same requirement applies
to any member of a limited liability company which is also a limited liability company. See,
Turner Bros. Crane and Rigging, LLC v. Kingboard Chemical Holding Ltd., Civ. A. No. 06-88A, 2007 WL 2848154, at *4 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 2007) (“when partners or members are themselves
With respect to Larry Johnson, the Fifth Circuit has explained that, “For diversity purposes, citizenship means
domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.” Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974) (citations
omitted). With respect to VMK, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the
citizenship of a partnership is determined by reference to the citizenship of each of its partners.” International Paper
Co. v. Denkmann Associates, 116 F.3d 134, 137 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Royal Ins. V. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d
877 (5th Cir. 1993)). The proposed Second Amended Complaint identifies the partners of VMK as Vickey Lott, Kim
Hutchinson and Monica Harrison, and alleges that all of the partners are Louisiana citizens.
entities or associations, the citizenship must be traced through however many layers of members
or partners there may be, and failure to do [so] can result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction.”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that VMK Enterprise shall have seven (7) days from the date
of this Order to file a Motion to Substitute the proposed Second Amended Complaint6 with a
proposed pleading that is a comprehensive complaint (i.e., it may not refer back to or rely on any
previous pleading) that includes all of Plaintiff’s numbered allegations, as revised, supplemented,
and/or amended and which adequately alleges the citizenship of the parties, which will become the
operative complaint in this matter without reference to any other document in the record.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 21, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. Doc. 36-2.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?