Newcomb v. DG Louisiana L L C et al
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 6/21/2017. (crt,Tice, Y)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CV-00772
CHIEF JUDGE DRELL
DG LOUISIANA, L.L.C. d/b/a
DOLLAR GENERAL, et al.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER
Before the Court is a Complaint removed from a Louisiana state court by
Defendants DG Louisiana, L.L.C. d/b/a Dollar General (“DG Louisiana”) and Brandy
Wilkes (Doc. 1). Defendants premise federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship.
The diversity statute – 28 U.S.C. § 1332 – is satisfied upon a showing of: (1)
diversity of citizenship between the parties; and (2) an amount in controversy in
excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. “Complete diversity requires that
all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all
persons on the other side.” See Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079
(5th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Further, “when jurisdiction
depends on citizenship, citizenship must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged.” See
Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th
Cir. 1988). The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” See
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This duty persists throughout all
phases of the litigation, “even after trial and the entry of final judgment.” See id. at
The citizenship of an individual is his or her domicile, meaning the place where
an individual resides and intends to remain. See Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran
Good Samaritan Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003). A corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business. See Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 757
F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014). The citizenship of a general partnership depends on
that of all partners. See Int'l Paper Co. v. Denkmann Associates, 116 F.3d 134, 135,
137 (5th Cir. 1997). The citizenship of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”), a limited
partnership, or other unincorporated association or entity is determined by the
citizenship of all its members. See Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1079-80.
Plaintiff Rita Newcomb is a Louisiana resident.
Defendant DG Louisiana, L.L.C. is solely owned by Dolgencorp, L.L.C., which
is solely owned by the Dollar General Corporation. The Dollar General Corporation
was incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Tennessee (Doc. 1).
Therefore, DG Louisiana, L.L.C. is a citizen of Tennessee.
Defendant Brandy Wilkes is a resident of Louisiana. Defendants allege that
Brandy Wilkes, an employee of Dollar General, was improperly joined as a defendant
(Doc. 1). Defendants argue that Newcomb does not have a claim against Wilkes under
Diversity of citizenship is not clear from the pleadings.
existence of federal jurisdiction is in question.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order upon all parties
to this action IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of proof of service or an appearance.
IT IS ORDERED that, no later than 21 days from service of this Order,
Defendants DG Louisiana, LLC and Brandy Wilkes shall file Jurisdictional
Memoranda on the issue of improper joinder of Wilkes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be allowed fourteen days from
receipt of Defendants’ memorandum regarding jurisdiction to file a Response to
Defendants’ Jurisdictional Memoranda on the issue of improper joinder.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____
day of June, 2017.
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge
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?