Buchanan v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al
JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDING - Diversity jurisdiction is established. No further action is necessary at this time. This finding is preliminary in nature and may be reconsidered sua sponte or upon appropriate motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 10/26/2017. (crt,Tice, Y)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-01314
CHIEF JUDGE DRELL
WAL-MART STORES INC., et al.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDINGS
Before the Court is a Complaint removed from a Louisiana state court by
Defendants Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Doc. 1).
Defendants premise federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship.
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
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
In cases removed from state court, diversity of citizenship must exist
both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir.1996).
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.
Defendants make the following representations as to the citizenship of all
parties (Doc. 1):
Plaintiff Lisa Buchanan as a citizen of Louisiana.
Defendant Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. is a limited liability company; its sole
owner is Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., a limited partnership composed of two partners,
WSE Management, L.L.C. (GP) and WSE Investment, L.L.C. (LP), which are both
limited liability companies. The sole owner of each is Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., an
Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Therefore,
Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. is a citizen of Arkansas.
Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Arkansas.
Therefore, Wal-Mart, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and
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.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____
day of October, 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?