Mitali Express, LLC v. Canopius US Insurance, Inc.

Filing 3

NOTICE AND ORDER: Canopius US Insurance, Inc. shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Notice and Order to file a comprehensive amended Notice of Removal without further leave of Court properly setting forth the citizenship particulars required to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 10/23/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MITALI EXPRESS, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-1210-BAJ-EWD

CANOPIUS US INSURANCE, INC.

NOTICE AND ORDER
This matter arises from a first-party property insurance claim asserted by Mitali Express,
LLC (“Mitali”) against Canopius US Insurance, Inc. (“Canopius”) under a commercial property
insurance policy issued by Canopius for certain property located at 1410 N. Range Avenue,
Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726.1 The insurance claim is for the flood damage that occurred on
or about August 13, 2016, as well as damage from an alleged burglary at the subject property
around the time of the flood. On or about August 14, 2017, Mitali filed a Petition for Damages
against Canopius in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston, State of
Louisiana, seeking damages and reimbursement for restoration and replacement of Mitali’s
damaged property and all ancillary costs associated therewith.2 The matter was removed to this
Court by Canopius on October 20, 2017, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).3

1

R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 2.
R. Doc. 1-2.
3
R. Doc. 1. Canopius asserts that removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) because the state court Petition had
not yet been served upon Canopius at the time of removal. Id. at ¶ 4. Alternatively, Canopius asserts that removal is
timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) because Canopius recently learned that the amount sought by Mitali exceeds
$75,000. Specifically, Canopius asserts that it received a copy of the Petition from Mitali’s counsel by email on
August 18, 2017, at which point Canopius believed that Mitali intended to pursue a claim of approximately $27,000
for alleged burglary damages. However, on September 26, 2017, Mitali’s counsel sent email correspondence to
counsel for Canopius indicating that Mitali is seeking approximately $147,385.94 for its alleged burglary damages.
Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. Thus, Canopius contends removal is timely.
2

The Notice of Removal contains the following allegations regarding the citizenship of the
parties:
9.
Plaintiff, Mitali Express, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company,
registered in the State of Louisiana with its registered domicile
address at 13033 Carrington Place Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA
70817. (See Plaintiff's Petition, Exhibit “A”)(See Louisiana
Secretary of State Detailed Record for Mitali Express, LLC, Exhibit
“B”).
10.
Defendant, Canopius US Insurance, Inc., is a corporation which is
incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located in the State of Illinois. Thus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C.§ 1332(c)(1), Canopius US Insurance, Inc. is a citizen of the
States of Delaware and Illinois.4
Proper information regarding the citizenship of all parties is necessary to establish the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction, as well as to make the determination required under 28 U.S.C. §
1441 regarding whether the case was properly removed to this Court. Citizenship has not been
adequately alleged in the Notice of Removal. While the citizenship of the defendant, Canopius
US Insurance, Inc., has been properly alleged,5 the citizenship of the plaintiff, Mitali Express,
LLC, has not been adequately alleged. 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

4

R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 9 and 10.
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. § 1332(c).
5

2

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. 06-88-A, 2007 WL 2848154,
at *4 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 2007) (“when partners or members are themselves 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.”) (citations
omitted).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Canopius US Insurance, Inc. shall have seven (7) days
from the date of this Notice and Order to file a comprehensive amended Notice of Removal without
further leave of Court properly setting forth the citizenship particulars required to establish that
the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 23, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3