Basco v. General Motors L L C

Filing 5

JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 8/10/2017. (crt,FinnSld, P)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

b

962

WARREN ALAN BASCO

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-00972

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE DRELL

GENERAL MOTORS, L.L.C.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDING
Before the Court is a Complaint filed in this Court by Plaintiff Warren Alan
Basco. Basco premises federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship (Doc. 1).
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and cannot entertain
cases unless authorized by the Constitution and legislation. See Coury v. Prot, 85
F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996).

There is a presumption against subject matter

jurisdiction, which must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court.
See Coury, 85 F.3d at 248. The party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal
court has the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.
Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, Defendants have the burden of
proving this Court has diversity jurisdiction.
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.” 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.”
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.”
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
506-07.
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 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.
Basco alleges he is a citizen of Louisiana.
Basco further alleges that General Motors, L.L.C. is a limited liability company
owned by General Motors Holdings, L.L.C., which is owned by General Motors
Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.
Therefore, General Motors, L.L.C. is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan.

2

Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction is established.
necessary at this time.

No further action is

This finding is preliminary in nature, and may be

reconsidered sua sponte or upon appropriate motion.
10th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____
day of August, 2017.

______________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

3