Boudreaux v. Lexington Insurance Company
ORDER: Plaintiff shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file a motion to substitute the 4 Amended Complaint with a comprehensive amended complaint as listed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 11/7/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DONALD P. BOUDREAUX
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY
Before the Court is an Amended Complaint, filed by plaintiff Donald P. Boudreaux.1
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on November 1, 2017, asserting that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction.2 On November 2, 2017,
Plaintiff was ordered file an amended Complaint properly setting forth the citizenship particulars
required to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. 3 Pursuant to the
November 2, 2017 Order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which contains the following
allegations regarding citizenship of the parties:
Homeowner is a person of the full age of majority and is domiciled
in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, and at all times relevant herein was
the owner of property located at municipal address 7525 Colonial
Dr., Denham Springs, LA 70726.
Insurer, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, is a foreign
insurance company authorized to and presently doing business in
R. Doc. 4.
R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3.
R. Doc. 2.
Livingston Parish, Louisiana.4
The Amended Complaint further asserts that, “Insurer’s domicile is 2711 Centerville Road, Ste.
400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. Its principal place of business is 99 High Street, Floor 24,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110.”5
Proper information regarding the citizenship of all parties is necessary to establish the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Citizenship has not been adequately
alleged in the Amended Complaint. While the citizenship of Donald Boudreaux has been
adequately alleged,6 the citizenship of Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) has not been
properly alleged. Like the original Complaint,7 the Amended Complaint does not allege whether
Lexington is incorporated. The Fifth Circuit has held, “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).
However, the Fifth Circuit has also held that, “[A]n unincorporated association is
considered to have the citizenship of its members.” Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Quinn-L Capital
Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 882 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Further, 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,
R. Doc. 4 at ¶¶ 5 and 6.
R. Doc. 4 at ¶ 1.
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).
See, R. Doc. 1.
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. 06-88-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).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have seven (7) days from the date of this
Order to file a motion to substitute the Amended Complaint8 with a comprehensive amended
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 adequately alleges
the citizenship of all 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 November 7, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. Doc. 4.
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?